Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Norwich Corporation Bill (by Order),

Read a Second time, and committed.

Public Works Facilities Scheme (Torquay Corporation) Bill,

Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

ALWAR.

Mr. DONNER: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he has any information as to whether the land revenue of the Alwar State was increased in the last revision of settlement; and, if so, to what extent?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): I have seen a statement that the land revenue of Alwar State was increased in the last revision of the settlement but I have no precise information on the subject.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he will state what is the present position in respect of British intervention in the territory of Alwar?

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he can state why Captain Ibbotson, I.C.S., who was lent to Alwar State by the Government of India as revenue Minister following the Meo revolt, returned to Delhi almost immediately after going to Alwar to take over his appointment and has since remained in Delhi; and what steps the Government of India propose to take in the matter?

Sir S. HOARE: Captain Ibbotson was withdrawn because he did not receive
the co-operation necessary to enable him to carry out his duties successfully. It has now been arranged with His Highness the Maharaja that Captain Ibbotson shall return to the State with full powers as Special Commissioner in the disturbed areas. In addition His Highness has agreed to appoint a British officer as his Prime Minister. In the meantime the restoration of law and order in the disturbed districts of the State is being carried out by the British military force which was sent for that purpose early in January.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Does the statement with regard to the officer's responsibility apply to the Maharaja, the Indian Government, or the right hon. Gentleman?

Sir S. HOARE: I think that it applies to the Government of India, but I should like to look into that question.

OFFICERS AND CIVIL SERVANTS (STEAMSHIP PASSAGES).

Mr. HALES: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he has received a reply to his communication to the Government of India as to the desirability of British officers and civil servants proceeding to India, whose passages are paid by Government, travelling by British steamers?

Sir S. HOARE: No, Sir.

Mr. HALES: May I ask whether, in the meantime, the right hon. Gentleman could not arrange for the outward passages of officers and civil servants in British ships, and is he not aware that there is widespread dissatisfaction at this subsidy to foreign steamships by the British Government?

Sir S. HOARE: This is a very difficult subject, and I have answered one or two questions upon it before. If my hon. Friend will refer to my former answers, he will see the reasons that I gave in support of the policy I have adopted.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: Would the right hon. Gentleman not consider adjusting the leave of British officers and civil servants to within the few days necessary to secure a British passage back to England?

Sir S. HOARE: It is not only a question of dates but a question of price as well. It is very difficult to compel a civil servant to pay more for his passage in a British ship than in another ship.

Mr. HALES: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the British steamship companies reduced their rates to the Continental level some six months ago?

Captain FULLER: Is it not a fact that these officers have to go by the cheapest possible boats on account of the salary cuts?

MADRAS (TEMPLE ENTRY BILL).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he will state the reasons why the Government of Madras refused to allow the introduction of the Temple Entry Bill in the Madras Legislature?

Sir S. HOARE: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement issued by the Governor-General on this subject, of which I will send him a copy.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this affects Southern India far more than the rest of India, and are the Government of India anxious to reduce caste restrictions in India?

Sir S. HOARE: It certainly affects Southern India to a greater extent, but it is an All-India question which we think can be discussed better in connection with a comprehensive Bill than on a more limited issue in the Madras Province.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Surely the right hon. Gentleman must be aware that the majority in favour of this proposal is much smaller in the whole of India than in Southern India where the question really arises.

INDO-JAPANESE TRADE AGREEMENT.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the violation of the most-favoured-nation clause in the Indo-Japanese trade agreement; and if the Government of India intend making representations to the Government of Japan accordingly?

Sir S. HOARE: If the hon. Member will specify the particular act of the
Japanese Government that he has in mind I will consider the question of asking the Government of India for a report.

Mr. GRENFELL: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for India what action the Government of India proposes to take in response to the representations from Indian chambers of commerce, or similar bodies, with reference to abnormal imports of manufactures from Japan into India?

Sir S. HOARE: As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, the Government of India raised their ad valorem duties on non-British cotton piece goods to 50 per cent. last year in consequence of the abnormal imports from Japan.

ARMY ORGANISATION.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India are to be represented at the meeting of military experts of the Indian States, to be held at New Delhi this month, for the purpose of considering various schemes of army organisation in the states?

Sir S. HOARE: I have no information in regard to the meeting referred to.

LOCUSTS.

Mr. FREDERICK HALL: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether any and, if so, what steps are being taken by the Imperial Council of Agricultural Research in India to secure information as to swarms of locusts in Arabia, Persia, and other places outside India?

Sir S. HOARE: I have no information on this subject.

BANGALORE CIVIL AND MILITARY STATION.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India have come to any decision with reference to the Mysore durbar's case for retrocession of the Bangalore civil and military station; and, if so, what is the nature of the decision?

Sir S. HOARE: I am not aware that any announcement on the subject has been made.

SARDA ACT.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the
Government of India have under consideration the question of empowering magistrates to issue injunctions to stop unlawful marriages under the Sarda Act; and if so, when it is expected that legislation to amend the Act will be introduced into the legislative assembly?

Sir S. HOARE: So far as I am aware, the Government of India do not contemplate the introduction of legislation to amend the Sarda Act.

RAILWAY STORES (ORDERS).

Mr. REMER (for Mr. HANNON): 1.
asked the Secretary of State for India what contracts for the supply of locomotives and other railway material have recently been placed with continental firms; and if any action has been taken by the India Office to secure that these contracts should be placed in this country?

Sir S. HOARE: Of the orders for railway stores recently placed by the High Commissioner for India and by the Indian railway companies in London only some 6 per cent. were obtained by continental firms. In addition some contracts have been placed with these firms by railway authorities in India direct, but I have no information as to the amounts. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 30th November to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Captain A. Ramsay).

PRISONERS.

Mr. LUNN (for Mr. T. WILLIAMS): 2.
asked the Secretary of State for India how long the three prisoners who were acquitted in the Meerut conspiracy trial had been in prison; and whether they received any compensation for such imprisonment?

Sir S. HOARE: These three prisoners were arrested in March, 1929. They were released on bail in May, 1931. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. TINKER (for Mr. KIRKWOOD): 5.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that, in addition to the severe sentences imposed on the Meerut conspiracy case prisoners, they are now denied the use of tables, chairs, and lights in the gaol; whether he will state in what class the prisoners have
been placed; and what is the value in English currency of the food allowance of prisoners in each of the three classes, A, B, and C?

Sir S. HOARE: I am informed by the Government of India that the prisoners were recommended by the judge for "C" class treatment, but are actually being treated as class "B" prisoners by order of the local Government. I have no reason to suppose that they are being deprived of any of the privileges laid down for prisoners of that class. I have not the material to answer the last part of the question.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider the time has arrived, in view of the prolonged time occupied on the trial, to transfer these people, at least temporarily pending 'an appeal, to the "A" class rather than the "C" class?

Sir S. HOARE: Prisoners are entitled in questions of that kind to make representations to the provincial authorities. Whether they have made those representations I do not know, but they are entitled to make them.

Mr. JONES: Could not the right hon. Gentleman himself, in view of the fact that these men might very well be regarded as political prisoners, initiate a recommendation that they might be transferred to class "A"

Sir S. HOARE: I think that the fact that the authorities have given them class "B" privileges in place of class "C," which was the sentence of the judge, shows that the authorities are very much alive to their responsibilities.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has an appeal yet been put in?

Sir S. HOARE: I do not know.

Mr. McENTEE (for Mr. GROVES): 4.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he is aware that Dr. Choiteram Ghidvani, a doctor in Bombay, was taken recently for a train journey of over 36 hours when seriously ill, was handcuffed all the time and not allowed to buy milk though in an exhausted condition; and whether he will have an inquiry instituted as to the treatment of political prisoners, and especially women and invalid persons, to ensure that on such train journeys unnecessary hardship shall not be caused?

Sir S. HOARE: I have no information in regard to Dr. Ghidvani. As regards the second part of the question, the transfer of prisoners is governed by the provisions of the Jail Manuals of the various provinces. These provide for their medical examination before transfer and for their diet during the journey. I have no reason to suppose that any revision is called for.

Mr. McENTEE (for Mr. GROVES): 6.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that in the police evidence against Mr. P. B. Sinha, barrister, who was recently sentenced to 18 months' rigorous imprisonment at Benares, one of the charges was that he had sent news about Congress activities to the India League in London; and if he will state under what Ordinance or Statute it is an offence to send information from India to this association?

Sir S. HOARE: Mr. Sinha was charged with assisting in the management of an unlawful association—the All India Congress Committe—and convicted under Section 17 (2) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908.

Mr. D. GRENFELL (for Dr. JOHN WILLIAMS): 26.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether any difference is being made in the treatment accorded to the Indian and the British prisoners convicted in the Meerut case on the same or allied charges?

Sir S. HOARE: I understand that there is no discrimination between the prisoners. All have been raised from "C" to "B" class by the Local Government.

BURMA.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES (for Mr. PARKINSON): 9.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of Burma intend to act on the resolution passed by the Legislative Council of Burma in favour of suspending the annual migration, of the Government of Burma to Maymyo as a measure of economy?

Sir S. HOARE: I have no information as to the intentions of the Government of Burma in the matter.

Mr. DAVIES (for Mr. PARKIN SON): 10.
asked the Secretary of State for India what action the Government of
India propose to take in response to the representations from Burmese chambers of commerce and other similar bodies with reference to the reservation of Burmese coastal traffic?

Sir S. HOARE: I have not heard from the Government of India on this point, but will ask for a report.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE.

Mr. HICKS: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the report of the International Labour Office at Geneva with reference, inter alia, to the possibilities of a voluntary scheme of unemployment insurance in India, especially in respect of separate categories of labour; and whether it is proposed to ask the Government of India for a report on the subject?

Sir S. HOARE: I have seen no report answering to the hon. Member's description.

POST AND TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT (SALARY CUTS).

Mr. HICKS: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for India what action the Government of India propose to take in response to the representations from unions of Post Office employés in India protesting against any continuance of salary cuts in the Posts and Telegraph Department in order to secure uniformity of treatment of Government employés in this matter?

Sir S. HOARE: I have no information regarding the representations referred to.

Mr. HICKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries?

Sir S. HOARE: Yes, Sir.

INDIAN ARMY (ENLISTMENT OF BURMANS).

Mr. McENTEE: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India have under consideration the question of allowing Burmans to enlist in the Indian Army; and when it is contemplated that a decision will be taken in the matter?

Sir S. HOARE: Certain classes of Burmans such as Karens are already enlisted in the Burma Rifles, which form part of the Indian Army. The question of enlisting Burmans from other classes in the Defence Forces of Burma, if that
country is to be separated from India, has been taken into consideration since it was raised at the Burma Round Table Conference. I cannot yet say when a decision is likely to be reached.

Captain FULLER: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that Karens are not Burmans and that Burmans have been enlisted in the Army before, and proved a most expensive luxury?

Sir S. HOARE: I am so fully aware of the fact that I have drawn a distinction in the answer which I have just given.

ORISSA (BUDGET DEFICIT)

Mr. McENTEE: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether any estimate has been made of the prospective deficit in the budget of the new province of Orissa after its separation from Bihar; and, if so, what is the amount of such deficit and what subvention is likely to be required for the new province after its establishment?

Sir S. HOARE: The deficit is at present estimated at a little over£200,000 a year. I cannot yet give any figure for the subvention from the Centre.

ANIMALS (SLAUGHTER).

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he will consider issuing instructions that the animals slaughtered for the food of the British troops in India shall be killed by British soldiers and that the humane killer shall be the method employed?

Sir S. HOARE: I fear I can add nothing to the replies I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend on the I3th June last, except that the authorities in India are continuing 'to give this matter their attention.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is now the policy of the Army to give vocational training to soldiers before they leave the Service, and will not he consider training such soldiers as butchers, so as to eliminate the abominable Mohammedan method of slaughter?

Sir S. HOARE: I went fully into this question on the 13th June, and I really have nothing to add to the answer then given to my hon. and gallant Friend.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the religious susceptibilities of our Indian friends and not do anything which might raise their objections?

Sir S. HOARE: If my hon. and gallant Friend will look at the answer of the 13th June, he will see that I dealt with that point.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Will the right hon. Gentleman see to it that humane killers are adopted in our own country before they are imported into India?

Sir S. HOARE: That is a question which should be addressed to some other Minister.

CHITTAGONG ARMOURY CASE (DEATH SENTENCE).

Mr. MORGAN JONES: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the case of Ambika Charan Chakravarthi who has, under the Ordinances, been tried in connection with the Chittagong Armoury case and sentenced to death; whether he is aware that the accused was not charged with or proved to have been guilty of homicide; that the verdict was not unanimous, and that the co-accused was sentenced to transportation, and whether he will have inquiries made as to the possibility of granting a reprieve?

Sir S. HOARE: I have been informed of the sentences passed in this case, but have not yet a copy of the Judgment. The accused have the right to appeal to the High Court, and the death sentence cannot in any case be executed until it has been confirmed by the High Court. I am not prepared to intervene at this stage.

Mr. JONES: May I ask whether the time that may elapse between the confirmation of the sentence and the promulgation of the sentence is about seven days?

Sir S. HOARE: It is a comparatively short period. I have sent a telegram to India asking for further information, and I think the hon. Member may rest assured that there is no risk of the execution taking place until I have received further information on the subject.

Mr. JONES: I will put a question on Wednesday. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will answer then if he is in a position to do so?

Sir S. HOARE: I should hope so, but I cannot say.

RICE IMPORTS.

Mr. C. EDWARDS (for Mr. JOHN): 19.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether it is proposed to take any action on the resolution passed unanimously by the Burma Legislative Council urging the Government of India to prohibit rice imports into India and Burma except from Empire countries?

Sir S. HOARE: I have not heard whether the Government of India propose to take any action.

VACCINATION (CALCUTTA).

Mr. McENTEE (for Mr. GROVES): 24.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether vaccination is compulsory in the city of Calcutta, and under what statute?

Sir S. HOARE: Yes, Sir, under the Bengal Vaccination Act of 1880.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (COMMUNIST-BANDIT ACTIVITIES).

Earl WINTERTON: 29.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state in which areas or provinces of China, excluding Manchukuo, Communist and other organisations dispute the authority of the Government at Nanking to the extent of preventing the latter from exercising its constitutional functions; and what is the proportion of those areas or provinces to the total land area of China, excluding Manchukuo?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): The provinces which are at present chiefly affected by Communist-bandit activities, or have recently been so are the five central Yangtze provinces of Hupei, Honan, Anhui, Hunan and Kiangsi, together with the coastal provinces of Fukien and Kwangtung. The main Communist concentrations in Hupei, Honan and Anhui have been broken up, but there has recently been an irruption of Communist armies into the north-east of Szechuan in west China. Accurate figures of the extent of territory controlled by these organisations are not available, and
I am therefore unable to state what proportion they form to the total land area of China proper. I hope my Noble Friend will appreciate that Communist control does not by any means extend over the whole area of the provinces named and is for the most part confined to regions where two or more provinces meet.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: What action has the League of Nations taken to restore Chinese sovereignty in those areas?

Mr. McGOVERN: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the proposed Japanese authorities manage to control the whole of this Province by Communist activities?

Earl WINTERTON: Is it a fact that the right hon. Gentleman receives from time to time reports from His Majesty's diplomatic and Consular representatives in China as to the extent of Communist activities in particular Provinces; and would it be possible to furnish the House, from the point of view of affording information to traders, information as to where these disturbances take place from time to time?

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: In there anything in the constitution of the League of Nations to prevent the whole Chinese nation turning Socialist?

Sir J. SIMON: In reply to the question put to me by the Noble Lord, of course from time to time reports are received from our diplomatic and Consular representatives. I cannot say without close examination how far they would supply material on the point mentioned by the Noble Lord, but I will look into it.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is there much to choose between the Communist and the other two Chings?

Sir J. SIMON: I am not choosing anything.

Mr. DAVIES: Is there anything in the constitution of the League of Nations to prevent any people in any country turning Communist, Socialist, Conservative or National?

Mr. SPEAKER: That certainly does not arise out of the question on the Paper.

Earl WINTERTON: 30.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which areas or provinces in China, excluding Manchukuo, British subjects are advised by His Majesty's consuls to avoid entering owing to the inability of the Government at Nanking to afford them protection from the lawless elements in those areas or provinces?

Sir J. SIMON: I am not aware of any general advice of the nature referred to having been given by His Majesty's Consuls in China, though naturally British subjects taking out passports for the interior are advised not to proceed to Communist controlled areas or such districts as may from time to time be the subject of bandit activities.

Sir W. DAVISON: Has my right hon. Friend any information with regard to Manchukuo to the effect that if Japanese control were withdrawn Chinese sovereignty could be maintained?

Sir J. SIMON: I think my hon. Friend will observe that this question is not so framed as to include Manchukuo.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA AND JAPAN.

Mr. DONNER: 32.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is in a position to make a statement with regard to the latest developments in Jehol?

Sir J. SIMON: I have nothing to add to the reply which I returned on Thursday last to my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane). There has been no change in the situation so far as I am aware since that date.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

RUSSIA.

Sir W. DAVISON: 33.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether in any new trading agreement with the Russian Soviet Government steps will be taken to secure the revenue from loss and to rectify the handicap now suffered by British traders in competition with the Russian trade delegation, by reason of the fact that this trade organisation is exempt from the payment of Income Tax as it is maintained by a foreign Government and claims diplomatic immunity?

Sir J. SIMON: My hon. Friend' suggestion will be borne in mind.

Sir W. DAVISON: Does my right hon. Friend realise the serious handicaps that are suffered by the Treasury of this country, as well as by British nationals, owing; to the way in which trading is being carried on by a Government in this case?

MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS (IMPORTS).

Captain CAZALET: 59.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the total amount of fresh milk and milk products imported into this country to the nearest convenient date during the last six months?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): As the answer involves a number of figures, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Captain CAZALET: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the figures show an increase or a decrease over the same period last year?

Dr. BURGIN: Not without notice.

Following is the answer:


The following table shows the total quantity and declared value of the undermentioned descriptions of milk and milk products imported into the United Kingdom, as registered during the six months ended 31st January, 1933.


Description.
Quantity.
Declared Value.



Cwts.
£


Milk, fresh
25,488
14,979


Milk, cream
43,128
153,710


Milk, condensed, not sweetened.
206,499
419,573


Milk, condensed, sweetened:




Milk, Whole
120,156
199,520


Separated or skimmed.
994,018
1,042,423


Milk, powder, not sweetened.
167,374
279,446


Milk, powder, sweetened
2,100
9,906


Milk, preserved, other kinds, not sweetened.
1,525
3,281

BRITISH INDUSTRIES FAIR.

Mr. GLOSSOP: 36.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department for what reason the charge of 2s. is made for entry to the British Industries Fair; and to whom this charge applies?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): Owing to the withdrawal of the Government grant of£25,000 for publicity, the Advisory Committee of the London section of the fair recommended the institution of an entry charge to provide funds for the purpose. Except actual exhibitors' assistants and those directly concerned with the organisation of the fair, or those who in some other manner are called upon to render some special service to the fair, everyone is expected to pay for admission in future.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Are the exhibitors themselves invited to make contributions?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The exhibitors are, of course, charged rent for the space they occupy.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS (CONTRIBUTIONS).

Mr. LEVY: 34.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many members of the League of Nations are still in arrears with their contributions; the total amount outstanding; and what proportion of the revenue of the League is paid by Great Britain?

Sir J. SIMON: Twenty-seven countries are still in arrears with their contributions, the total amount outstanding being 23,637,216 gold francs. His Majesty's Government's contribution in respect of the year 1933 is 10.37 per cent. of the total contributions payable for the year.

Mr. LEVY: Can my right hon. Friend say what advantage, if any, this country enjoys from its disproportionate contribution, and whether voting power is related to the degree of financial support?

Sir J. SIMON: I take the view that it is both in the interest and one of the duties of this country to play its part as a loyal member of the League of Nations.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any limit is set to the overdrafts of these States?

Sir J. SIMON: I do not think that there is a constitutional limit, but, manifestly, the activities of the League can only be carried on in so far as there is money available.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Does the figure which the right hon. Gentleman has given apply to Great Britain alone, or to the British Empire?

Sir J. SIMON: It is the contribution of the United Kingdom Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Mr. SMITH-CARINGTON: 35.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been drawn to the case of an ex-naval rating named Watts, who has failed to obtain a pension which he claimed on the ground that he was disabled as a result of the prominent part which he took in the attack on Zeebrugge in April, 1918; and whether he will make full inquiry into the case?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): I am obliged to my hon. Friend for giving me an opportunity of stating the facts of this case, which has received some publicity owing to the supposed connection between the disability claimed by the man and his alleged part in the naval action at Zeebrugge. Watts first made a claim to pension last year, 14 years after the end of the War, for a disability which the Ministry was unable to find to be connected with his war service, but, in view of recent statements, I again ordered an exhaustive investigation of all the circumstances. Watts is reported to have claimed that he took part in the action at Zeebrugge, being stationed on a submarine which he was charged to sink by explosion in Zeebrugge harbour, and that he was severely gassed while swimming away after the explosion. On being questioned, however, he withdrew this claim, but then stated that he was serving on a motor launch near the scene of action in order to pick up survivors. Investigation of these statements has shown them to be entirely false, and Watts has now confessed that he was not present at the action at all.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

ALLOTMENTS (MINERS).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 41.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has in contemplation any scheme for finding land for allotments for unemployed mining villages in England similar to the scheme initiated in Scotland?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Major Elliot): The powers under which the Department of Agriculture for Scotland are providing the land referred to are contained in the Small Land Holders (Scotland) Act, 1911. In England and Wales the responsibility for providing allotments is, under the Allotments Acts, vested in local authorities, and the provision of seeds, fertilizers and implements for the use of unemployed persons cultivating allotments is at present greatly facilitated by a grant which is being made from the Development Fund to the Society of Friends. The provisions of the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Act, 1931, enabling the Ministry to provide allotments for unemployed persons, have not been put into operation, as no funds can at present be made available for that purpose.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman satisfied with that state of affairs, or is he holding out a hope that the mining villages of, say, Staffordshire will be provided for on similar lines to those in Scotland?

Major ELLIOT: In the first place, it is a question of availability of funds; but I am sure that the results of the experiment which is now going on in Scotland will be of great interest and value.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Why should Staffordshire be behind Scotland?

Mr. McGOVERN: They always have been behind.

Major ELLIOT: That is not necessarily so. I have known of cases where an experiment was not regarded as an advantage, but as a disadvantage.

Mr. MAXTON: Could not the£900,000 which is being devoted to Territorial camps have been more profitably devoted to the development of agriculture?

Major ELLIOT: I should certainly think that a great many of the people who are taking advantage of that grant are themselves unemployed men who would be very glad of the facilities offered by the Territorial camps.

Mr. MAXTON: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman will excuse me, but that was not my question—

Mr. SPEAKER: This question is about allotments, and not about Territorial Army camps.

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF SOCIAL SERVICE.

Mr. WALTER REA (for Mr. GRAHAM WHITE): 50.
asked the Minister of Labour to what extent and for what purposes the grant of£10,000 to the National Council of Social Service has been expended?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): The purposes of this grant were set out in my answer of the 13th instant to the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey), of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy. The arrangement with the council is that they are to render an account of expenditure up to the end of the financial year (31st March).

PUBLIC ASSISTANCE COMMISSIONERS, DURHAM.

Mr. HARCOURT JOHNSTONE: 52.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will make arrangements so that information can be obtained by means of questions in this House as to the administration of the commissioners appointed to administer the means test in the county of Durham?

Mr. HUDSON: The responsibility for decisions rests entirely with the commissioners in the same way that it rests with local authorities carrying out corresponding duties in other areas. My right hon. Friend does not consider, therefore, that arrangements could properly be made for dealing with this administration by means of question and answer.

Mr. BATEY: The Parliamentary Secretary has not answered the question on the Order Paper as to whether the Minister is going to answer questions put by Members from the county of Durham. Are we to understand that the Minister of Labour has gone on strike and will not answer any questions from the county of Durham?

Mr. HUDSON: I said that my right hon. Friend does not consider that arrangements can properly be made to deal with these matters of administration by means of question and answer in the House.

Mr. BATEY: Are we to understand that the Minister of Labour is not going to answer any questions, and that he has gone on strike?

Mr. DICKIE: Are we to understand that the only method whereby hon. Members can obtain information is by direct appeal to the commissioners themselves?

Mr. HUDSON: As I said the other day, the commissioners are in precisely the same position as the public assistance authorities. No questions are addressed to my right hon. Friend with respect to the administration by public assistance authorities in individual cases, and the same thing applies to the commissioners. It is open to hon. Members, if they wish to do so, to write to the commissioners and to ask for information. If the commissioners can give it, I have no doubt that they will do so.

Mr. BERNAYS: Are not these commissioners Government servants?

Mr. MORGAN JONES: On a point of Order. Is it not a well-known rule that a Minister in charge is under an obligation to answer to this House in respect of any person employed by his Department, whose salary is partly provided by this House?

Mr. SPEAKER: I dealt with that question the other day. A similar question was put to me on that point. Really, it is not for me to decide.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is it not a fact that these commissioners are responsible to the Minister, and that if they fail in their duty the only person we can hold responsible is the Minister, whereas the public assistance committee can itself control its officers? If this House has no power, and the Minister has no power, I should like to know who has?

Mr. HUDSON: I understand that this question is going to be raised on the Adjournment, possibly to-morrow. It would be more convenient to discuss the matter in detail in Debate than to deal with it by question and answer.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is it not a fact that the position taken up by the Minister violates the constitution? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Certainly. Here is a public official, whose salary is partly paid by this House, and is responsible to the Minister, and we cannot call in question his conduct. It is an extraordinary doctrine to lay down, and I protest against it.

Mr. HUDSON: The action taken by my right hon. Friend in appointing the commissioners was taken under an Order-in-Council issued in accordance with an Act passed by this House, and it must be assumed that when the House of Commons passed that Act it intended the consequences of that Act.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is the Minister aware that there is nothing in the Act laying down the terms and conditions under which these commissioners should be appointed, which removes them from the jurisdiction of this House—nothing at all?

Mr. MABANE: Would not this question be avoided if Socialist public assistance committees did their job?

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: From the question put by the Leader of the Opposition, and the answer given by the Minister, is it not a fact that the action taken under the Order-in-Council in no way affects the constitutional position, and that all officers who are appointed by Ministers must be regarded as having responsibility to the Minister, who can be questioned in this House?

Mr. BATEY: I should like to ask the Leader of the House, seeing that the Minister of Labour refuses to answer questions put by hon. Members from the county of Durham in regard to this matter, whether the Government will consider appointing some other Minister to answer those questions?

Mr. McGOVERN: Appoint Miss Bondfield!

Mr. BATEY: She could not do worse than this Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

AIR MAIL SERVICE (LEICESTER).

Mr. EVERARD: 44.
asked the Postmaster-General whether any special air mail post box has been established in the city of Leicester; and, if not, whether he will arrange for one to be erected?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Kingsley Wood): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. So far as the second part is concerned, I am having inquiries made, and will write to my hon. Friend.

DELIVERIES, CROYDON.

Mr. DORAN: 43.
asked the Postmaster-General if he can give any indication as to when he proposes to grant the Croydon postal district a later delivery than that already in existence; what the hour will be; and the number of extra postmen given employment?

Sir K. WOOD: I am not at present in a position to say more than that I am considering the possibility of affording a later delivery at Croydon and in similar districts around London.

Mr. DORAN: Can we anticipate during the next five years any answer which may be given on this particular matter?

Sir K. WOOD: Yes, Sir. Knowing the value of the statements of my hon. Friend, I promise him that I shall give due weight to his representations on this as on other matters.

Mr. DORAN: Thank you very much.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL AIRWAYS, LTD.

Mr. EVERARD: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is the policy of the Government that Imperial Airways should be placed under international control?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): As my hon. Friend is aware, His Majesty's Government have proposed to the Disarmament Conference at Geneva that there should be constituted a committee to examine the possibility of the entire abolition of military and naval aircraft combined with an effective international control of civil aviation. The object of His Majesty's Government is, therefore, to ascertain whether, and if so, under what conditions, effective international control of civil aviation is possible, and, until this has been discussed, the question which my hon. Friend asks me does not arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTERS OF THE CROWN (POWERS).

Captain DOWER: 46.
asked the Prime Minister what steps have been or are to be taken to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee on Ministers' Powers and, in particular, with regard to the assignment of judicial
functions to Ministers regarding matters concerning their Departments?

The PRIME MINISTER: The report of the Committee, to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, deals with issues of great importance and consequences, and I regret that the Government has not yet had sufficient opportunity to give it the thought and time that is required.

Captain DOWER: Is the Prime Minister aware that the conclusions of this Committee were unanimously agreed upon; did not my right hon. Friend say, on the 7th June, that the matter would be dealt with immediately after the Summer Recess; and can he assure the House that there will be no unnecessary delay in deciding whether these recommendations shall be adopted or not?

The PRIME MINISTER: I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that there has been no unnecessary delay, or, at any rate, no avoidable delay, but the subject is a very big one, and we must deal with it thoroughly. Just at the moment, as the House can very well understand, our minds are very pre-occupied.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: May we take it that this subject will receive the consideration of the Government? It is very important.

The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly; that is just what I have said. But there are certain things at the moment which, as the House must recognise, have to be dealt with as expeditiously as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — FISHING INDUSTRY.

Mr. HOWARD GRITTEN: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the depression in the fishing industry in this country and of the urgency of the matter, the Government will assign a day for the discussion of this subject?

The PRIME MINISTER: I regret that time did not permit last Wednesday of the discussion of my hon. Friend's Motion relating to the fishing industry. I am afraid that in present circumstances I cannot hold out any prospect of special time being given for this discussion.

Mr. GRITTEN: Could the Prime Minister indicate merely an approximate date on which this subject might be discussed, in view of the desperate condi-
tion of an industry on which hundreds of thousands of our workers depend, directly or indirectly?

The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. Friend knows that, as soon as we come to the Votes, the Vote can be put down and this subject discussed in Supply. It is not, however, our right to put the subject down; that belongs to the Opposition.

Mr. BOOTHBY: In view of the critical condition of the industry at the moment, could the Prime Minister give the House an assurance that, in the forthcoming negotiations for trading agreements with the different European countries, its special interests will be borne in mind by the Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is not exactly my direct responsibility, but I am informed that as a matter of fact that point is before the Department concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — REGENT'S PARK (PLAYS).

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: 48.
asked the First Commissioner of Works under what conditions he proposes to allow the performance of plays in the Inner Circle Gardens, Regent's Park, during the coming summer; and whether he will outline the arrangements that are being made?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I propose to grant permission for the performance of selected plays in the Inner Circle Gardens, Regent's Park, on the same lines as last year. I hope that performances will be given daily for a period of 16 weeks from the beginning of June, and I propose that the licensee should have the option of renewing the agreement for the two following years.

Oral Answers to Questions — EARL HAIG STATUE.

Brigadier-General NATION: 49.
asked the First Commissioner of Works how the question of the statue to Lord Haig stands at the present moment; and when it is anticipated the statue will be erected?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: There has been no change in the position indicated in my
reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel Moore) on 22nd December last.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOURS OF WORK.

Mr. VYVYAN ADAMS: 53.
asked the Minister of Labour what is the policy of His Majesty's Government with regard to the reduction by international agreement of the working week to 40 hours?

Mr. HUDSON: I would refer my hon. Friend to the very full reply given to the hon. Member for Hallam (Mr. L. Smith) on this subject on 9th February.

Mr. ADAMS: Am I correct in inferring that the Government are not inflexibly opposed to that proposition?

Oral Answers to Questions — LEPROSY.

Major PROCTER: 56.
asked the Minister of Health why leprosy has not been made a notifiable disease; and if he is prepared to make it notifiable?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): My right hon. Friend is advised that in the conditions which exist in this country leprosy is very unlikely to be conveyed from one person to another. The number of imported eases is very small and no instance is known in which infection has resulted from contact with them. My right hon. Friend is advised accordingly that compulsory notification is not required in the interests of the public health.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARGENTINE RAILWAYS (BRITISH CAPITAL).

Sir CYRIL COBB: 58.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can ascertain from the Argentine commercial delegation now in London if arrangements have been made by the Argentine national and provincial authorities to discharge the unpaid and overdue debts for railway services owing to the railways in Argentina operated with British capital?

Sir J. SIMON: The negotiations regarding the state of the account current, to which I referred in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton (Sir J. Haslam) on 28th November last, are
still proceeding between the railway companies and the authorities concerned. His Majesty's Government do not therefore propose to intervene at this stage.

Oral Answers to Questions — EAST AFRICA (ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE).

Mr. MORGAN JONES: 60.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can make any statement regarding the Commission which has been appointed to undertake an inquiry into the administration of justice in East Africa?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): With the hon. Member's permission I will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the personnel of the Commission of Inquiry and their terms of reference.

Following is the list:

The Secretary of State for the Colonies has appointed a Commission to undertake an inquiry into the administration of justice in criminal matters in East Africa.

The personnel of the Commission is as follows:

Chairman: Mr. H. G. Bushe, C.B., C.M.G., Legal Adviser to the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

Members: Mr. A. D. A. MacGregor, K.C., Attorney-General, Kenya; Mr. W. MacLellan Wilson, of Kiambu, Kenya; Mr. C. E. Law, Puisne Judge, Uganda; Mr. P. E. Mitchell, M.C., Secretary for Native Affairs, Tanganyika.

Secretary: Mr. J. B. Griffin, LL.D., Registrar of the High Court, Uganda.

The terms of reference of the Commission will be:
To inquire into the administration of the Criminal Law in Kenya, Uganda, and the Tanganyika Territory in relation to the procedure and practice of (a) the Courts other than Native Courts, and (b) the Police Authorities, and to consider whether, in regard to the procedure or practice of such Courts or Authorities, any alterations are desirable (a) in the case of natives, and (b) generally.

Mr. Bushe will leave England for East Africa on the 23rd of February, and the Commission will commence its work towards the end of March. The Commission will sit to take evidence at various places in Kenya, Uganda, and the Tanganyika Territory.

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMIC CONSULTATIONS (COMMITTEE'S REPORT).

Mr. MORGAN JONES: 61.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether any decisions arrived at by the Committee on Economic Consultation and Co-operation will be submitted to this House?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): Under its terms of reference the report of the Committee will be made to the several Governments. When the report has been received, the question of its publication will be considered in consultation with the Governments of the other parts of the Empire concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

CYCLISTS (REAR LIGHTS).

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: 65.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the number of accidents that have occurred during the past year to cyclists travelling by night without tail lights; and how many of these were fatal?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): Five cases of accidents to pedal cyclists who had neither rear light nor reflector were reported to the police in the Metropolitan Police District during the nine months, January to September, 1932. One of these accidents was fatal. I regret that I have no further information as to accidents of this particular kind.

RAILWAY ELECTRIFICATION.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS (for Sir PHILIP DAWSON): 70.
asked the Minister of Transport whether since the Third Reading of the London Passenger Transport Bill, he has received any definite undertaking from the London and North Eastern Railway Company that it will proceed with the electrification of its suburban lines round London; if so, what lines it proposes to electrify, when it proposes to start, and how long it will take to complete the work; and whether he has received any similar assurance from the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company that it will extend its suburban electrification?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut. - Colonel Headlam): Both the London and North Eastern Railway Company and the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company have informed my hon. Friend that certain schemes of London surhurban electrification are in an advanced stage of technical preparation and, in the event of the London Transport Bill becoming law, will be ready for immediate submission to the Standing Joint Committee of the Transport Board and the railway companies which the Bill proposes to set up. At my hon. Friend's request consultations are proceeding between the managements and technical officers of the different undertakings concerned with a view to the necessary coordination of their proposals. I must add that both the railway companies have made it clear that in the absence of the contemplated co-ordination of London passenger transport and of the cessation of wasteful competition, they will not be in a position to embark on heavy new expenditure for such purposes.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS (BRITISH WIVES).

Captain CAZALET: 63.
asked the Home Secretary whether he intends during the present Session to introduce legislation to deal with the question of the nationality of British women married to foreigners, either by adoption of the terms of The Hague Convention or by a separate measure giving full equality of status to women as regards nationality?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The matter is still under consideration, and I am not in a position at present to make a statement.

Miss CAZALET: In view of the deep sympathy expressed by successive Home Secretaries, does not the right hon. Gentleman think the time has arrived for the National Government to take action and thereby give a lead to the Empire as a whole, which is said to be the stumbling block?

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of people think it undesirable for members of a family to have different nationalities?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I can only say that I am receiving a deputation of women who are interested in the matter on the 22nd inst.

Oral Answers to Questions — BETTING FACILITIES.

Mr. LEVY: 66.
asked the Home Secretary whether any Government examination is being made of the problem of betting and the limitation of gambling facilities apart from the investigation now being conducted by the Royal Commission on Lotteries?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir; but the Government are, of course, closely watching the situation, particularly with reference to the use of totalisators.

Mr. LEVY: Would not an investigation of this kind be desirable so as to ascertain what public opinion is upon the matter when the Royal Commission reports

Oral Answers to Questions — WANDSWORTH PRISON (NEWS- PAPER REPORT).

Mr. EVERARD: 67.
asked the Home Secretary whether he will make a statement about recent disturbances at Wands worth Prison by convicts?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have seen a report which recently appeared in a Sunday newspaper to the effect that there had been what was described as an ugly disturbance at Wandsworth Prison by convicts who complained about the quality of the food; and I am glad to have this opportunity of informing the House that the report is entirely unfounded. I am sure that the House will join with me in deprecating the publication of such sensational and mischievous fabrications, and I trust that the newspaper concerned will give the same prominence to this statement as was given to the original report.

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX (BREWERY COMPANIES).

Mr. GLOSSOP: 68.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the amount of Income Tax received for each year during the past five years from brewery companies in England; and whether he can make an estimate of similar receipts for the current year?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I regret I am not in a position to furnish the information desired by my hon. Friend, as the produce of the Income Tax is not earmarked so as to show how much arises in respect of particular industries.

Mr. GLOSSOP: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer obtain those figures before making his arrangements for the Budget?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I do not think it is possible, because it is the shareholders who are liable to Income Tax and not the company.

Mr. GLOSSOP: Is it not a fact that the shareholders' Income Tax goes to the Exchequer?

Sir W. DAVISON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer informed the House that he would lose£10,000,000 if this increased Beer Duty was taken off? Can he say whether that£10,000,000 is likely to be realised?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: That is an entirely different question.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

LAND DRAINAGE.

Mr. LUNN (for Mr. T. WILLIAMS): 39.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has any progress to report in sanctioning further schemes for land drainage?

Major ELLIOT: As was explained when my hon. Friend asked a question on this subject on 14th June last, Catchment Boards do not require to obtain my sanction for schemes towards the cost of which a grant from State funds is not made. The position as regards such grants remains as it was then, namely that only in cases of the gravest emergency can an application for grant be considered, and no schemes have been sanctioned since the date mentioned.

WHEAT IMPORTS.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 57.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether there was any dumping of foreign-grown wheat in the 12 months ended 31st December, 1932; if so, whether the foreign Governments granted any subsidy; and what were the countries concerned?

Lieut-Colonel COLVILLE: The hon. Member will find particulars of the quantities and values of wheat imported into this country from the various sources of supply during the year 1932 in the Monthly Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom for that year. Several European countries include wheat in their schemes of assistance to agriculture but whether these schemes of assistance amount to a bounty upon export, is not clear.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEAT PRICES.

Mr. CROSSLEY (for Mr. HAMILTON KERR): 51.
asked the Minister of Labour what has been the average percentage change in retail meat prices in Great Britain since November, 1932; and by what percentage, if any, the present average retail price of meat exceeds that obtaining in the month referred to?

Mr. HUDSON: As the reply includes a number of figures, I propose, with my hon. Friend's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

Between 1st November, 1932, and 1st February, 1933, the average retail prices, in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of eight representative cuts of meat, as indicated by the information collected for the purpose of the official statistics of changes in working class cost of living, showed the following percentages of increase:



Average Increase Per cent.


British Beef:


Ribs
0.7


Thin Flank
1.8


Chilled or Frozen Beef:


Ribs
3.3


Thin Flank 
4.3


British Mutton:


Legs
3.0


Breast
4.6


Frozen Mutton:


Legs 
3.1


Breast 
5.6

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT).

Mr. MORGAN JONES (for Mr. BANFIELD): 69.
asked the Minister of Transport whether any regulations exist in his Department precluding members of
his staff from becoming candidates for election to local government bodies; and, if so, on what date such regulations were introduced?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: It has not been found necessary to issue any general Departmental regulation dealing with the candidature of officers of the Ministry for election to local government bodies, but it has been held that in certain branches, in particular the Roads Department, which have official relations with local authorities, it is undesirable that the officers in those branches should become members of local authorities. The same ruling applies to Traffic Commissioners' offices.

Mr. JONES: Will the Minister place a copy of the regulation, if it be a regulation, on the table of the Library?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I will see to that.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. THORNE:

54. To ask the Minister of Labour the name of the commissioner appointed to administer transitional benefits in the Wolverhampton Borough Council area; and the amount of salary and emoluments he is to receive?

55. To ask the Minister of Labour if he is aware that the Trades Union Congress held at Bristol in 1931 passed unanimously a resolution in favour of the introduction of a forty-hour working week without reduction of wages: that similar resolutions were passed at the Newcastle Congress in 1932 and the International Congress of the Federation of Trade Unions held in Stockholm in 1930 and whether the Government will announce their decision prior to the meeting of the International Labour Section of the League of Nations in June next?

Mr. BATEY: I promised my hon. Friend that I would put Questions 54 and 55 on his behalf. May I put them?

Mr. SPEAKER: When I called the questions, the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) was engaged in conversation.

BRITISH ARMY (FISH SUPPLIES).

Mr. BURNETT: 62.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what was the amount of fish supplied for consumption by Army personnel in the United Kingdom during 1932; and what was the average cost per lb.?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): Fish is not part of the soldier's ration at home and only such small quantities as are required for hospitals and certain schools are purchased directly from Army funds. As most of these small purchases are made locally, the information for which my hon. Friend asks is not readily available and could only be obtained at the expense of considerable trouble.

Mr. BOOTHBY: Will the Minister take into consideration the altogether exceptional qualification of the herring as an article of food and will he very seriously consider putting it upon the ordinary Army rations in substitution for beef?

CIVIL AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (ESTIMATES, 1933).

Estimates presented for Civil and Revenue Departments for the year ending 31st March, 1934, with Memorandum [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed.

AIR ESTIMATES, 1933.

Estimates presented for the year 1933 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed.

Orders of the Day — AUSTRIAN LOAN GUARANTEE BILL

Order for Third Reading read.

3.38 p.m.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
The Government do not infer from the fact that this Bill has passed through its stages without a Division that the apprehensions that have been expressed were unnatural. On the contrary, I think they were perfectly understandable, and my right hon. Friend and I have done our best to remove them. Is the course that we are taking in making this guaranteed loan to Austria a reasonable one? That question can only be answered by reference to the past. Vienna, although on a smaller scale is, like London, a financial metropolis. It polarises much of the business activity and much of the attention of the countries which surround it. The Creditanstalt is its principal bank. Following the practice of continental banks, that institution incurred many industrial commitments and in the economic conditions of the time fears were entertained lest there should be a run on the bank. The Government of Austria, anxious to circumscribe the effect of such a development, undertook to meet the obligations of the Creditanstalt. It did not know what the extent of the commitments that it was assuming would be and it addressed itself to the principal capitals of Europe. It was the intention of the Government in Austria to raise money upon Treasury Bonds in London and Paris. That course, however, proved impossible, and the Bank of England came to the succour of the Austrian Government and thereby of the Austrian National Bank and the Creditanstalt. The Austrian Government, in asking the Bank of England for assistance, promised to repay the 150,000,000 schillings which were in question, out of the proceeds of the first loan which was made. It was assumed that the loan would shortly be made and the Bank of England advance was on a weekly basis. The step taken was not sufficiently prompt to avert the spread of the
calamity, for Germany was affected and a moratorium was declared there. England was also touched, and the crisis of the autumn of 1931 ensued. The story should be sufficient to show how difficult it is to isolate the repercussions of financial disaster, and I think it is plain why we are anxious that Austria should not be allowed to fail.
I have told the House that the Bank of England made this advance upon its own responsibility; and by virtue of a contract which they made with the Austrian authorities it was to be repaid out of the first loan which Austria issued. That is a matter entirely between the Bank of England and Austria, although I think it is a fortunate thing for us that that contract exists, for it means that not one single penny of the proceeds of this loan will leave this country. The position arises by virtue of the contract arranged between the Bank of England and Austria, and this country is no party to that contract. The Austrian Government having failed to raise a loan, largely because of the financial developments which I have narrated to the House, therefore addressed itself to the Powers collectively, who undertook to make a guaranteed loan under certain precautions, which are now well known to the House. They imposed on Austria certain conditions, and, looking at these conditions, may I answer the second question which is relevant, and which has loomed large in the criticisms made in this House —is there a reasonable chance that the British taxpayer will avoid any liability under the guaranteed loan?
What are the conditions? Austria undertakes to rehabilitate the credit of the Creditanstalt, to balance her Budget, to meet punctually her foreign obligations and to reorganise her internal economy. Their efforts are proceeding satisfactorily under all these heads. What are the assets out of which the service of this loan is to be met? The answer to this question will be an even more cogent reply to the question as to the liability of the British taxpayer. The loan will be secured on the customs receipts, tobacco monopoly which have an annual yield of 570,000,000 schillings. The service of the loans of 1923 and 1930 required 89,000,000 and 34,000,000 schillings respectively, so that the surplus available for the new loan amounts to
approximately 450,000,000 schillings, which should suffice to cover the service of the new loan in Austrian currency at least 20 times. I am entitled to suggest that those hon. Members who fear that Austria is not in a position to meet this loan and who complain that we have guaranteed a loan to Austria rather than to our own people—hon. Members who make that attack on the Bill cannot substantiate it on the figures.

Mr. BRACKEN: Does not the Financial Secretary realise that Austria, a country which he describes as being so rich, is already in default on some of her loans?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No, neither the 1923 loan nor the 1930 loan is in default. If the hon. Member was making a criticism of some of the Powers which surround Austria his criticism would be justified. Hungary, Greece and Bulgaria have been obliged to suspend the services of their foreign loans in whole or in part, but there has been no default to the bondholders on the Austrian foreign loans of 1923 and 1930.

Mr. BRACKEN: I am sorry to have to contradict the hon. Member, but I must point out that the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain), who was Chairman of the League Loans Committee, stated in a publication this morning that Austria is in default.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Perhaps when the hon. Member makes his speech he will specify what loan and the amount. I am giving the House the information in my possession. If the hon. Member wishes, and he will particularise the loan which is in default and narrate the relevant circumstances proving that I am wrong, I shall be quite prepared to withdraw. I am of the opinion that Austria is not in default, certainly not on the 1923 loan and the 1930 loan, with which we are concerned. Further, as a result of fortifying the financial position of Austria, we shall continue to save£800,000 which might be endangered or rather which we might have to find as guarantors of the 1923 loan. On the whole the British taxpayer has more to gain than lose by this loan. I hope I have not exaggerated the position in any
way. I have shown the peculiar position of Austria which justifies this course, and the repercussions which may be expected to ensue if we allow that country to become embarrassed. I have shown that there is a distinct probability that the British taxpayer will not be called upon to meet any obligations, I put the case no higher than that, and I appeal to the House to allow the Third Reading of the Bill to pass.

3.48 p.m.

Captain CAZALET: I have listened to the speeches of the Financial Secretary on this subject and I think he has made the best possible case of an almost impossible subject. He has given us what appears to be satisfactory figures as to how the interest on this loan will be met. He has stated that it is amply covered by the customs revenues of Austria. May I point out that the loan is to be repaid in gold shillings, whereas the Austrian customs are paid in Austrian schillings, and there is a difference of nearly 20 per cent. between the two. This difference may be greater in a very short time and may wipe out the whole of the cover which the Financial Secretary says is there to meet the interest on the loan.

Earl WINTERTON: I hope the Financial Secretary will tell us if what the hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet) says is true. If it is then it is a very serious state of affairs.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I cannot reply while the hon. and gallant Member is speaking. I should prefer to hear the speech first and then answer it.

Captain CAZALET: I do not want to make a point so as to score off the Financial Secretary. My hon. Friend said that unless we gave this extra loan, unless the British taxpayers guarantee another£4,000,000, we might lose£800,000. It seems to me that we shall lose£4,800,000. One of the reasons for Austria's present plight is that in the past she has over-borrowed, and so, I presume, it is hoped, by giving her the hypothetical advantage of another loan, to secure what really is impossible to-day. I do not suppose that any loan was discussed or raised with less good will than the present one. I believe that the anxieties and misgivings concerning this loan are shared equally on the Treasury Bench and in other parts of
the House. Many of us spoke against the Financial Resolution before Christmas, but as we did not go into the Division Lobby against it any opposition to this Bill is now theoretical rather than practical. I must admit that nothing has happened since December to alter my views or those of my hon. Friends in regard to this Measure. Certainly a short visit to Austria and Vienna has only endorsed and confirmed every doubt and misgiving which I held a few weeks ago.
We have been asked to support this Bill on two grounds; first, because of some commitment or promise between a former Government and the Bank of England; and secondly, on the ground that we must carry out an obligation into which we have entered with foreign nations in order to help Austria. I do not think either of them is a very good reason, nor do I think, although the Financial Secretary has made out the best possible case, that he has substantiated this particular argument. First of all in regard to our commitments with the Bank of England, it seems to me a very good example of the curious and nebulous relationship between the Treasury and the Bank of England. I am not saying that the present Government are the exception, because all Governments are the same. Sometimes we are told that the Bank of England is a completely independent body, maintaining friendly relations with the Treasury. That argument is used when it suits the Government. On other occasions we have the case in which, apparently, the Government feel in duty bound to take over a commitment from the Bank of England. Of course, it simply means in other words that the Treasury, or rather the British taxpayer, is assuming a responsibility which, in the Financial Secretary's own words, the Bank of England took entirely independently on its own account. There is this to be said: Had the Bank of England not made this particular stipulation, that their short-term loan should be repaid out of the first long-term loan raised by Austria, we should have found ourselves to-day voting an extra£4,000,000 to Austria in addition to that which the Bank of England has already lent.
My hon. Friend said that one satisfactory thing about the loan was that no money would leave the country. That
is not really helping the argument that this loan is going to be of substantial use to Austria. My hon. Friend cannot have it both ways. I understand that the position of the Government is a very unpleasant one. They have to come to the House and ask for a guarantee of over£4,000,000, while at the same time they are refusing to issue loans for purely domestic matters—loan issues which, I think, are far more likely to prove to the benefit of the taxpayer of this country than this Austrian Loan will ever be. In my view this loan is going to be of very little use to Austria. First of all, it does definitely tie her for a number of years upon a particular point. We have heard various arguments. I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) who suggested that this loan was some secret arrangement. I think he was wrong in saying that it was "secret," but certainly it is not plainly stated in the Bill.
I understand that the facts are these: Austria raised a loan in 1922, subject to certain conditions known as Protocol No. 1. One of the conditions was that she could not form a Customs Union with Germany. That loan extended only from 1922 to 1940. When the loan was repaid that condition would have come to an end. This loan extends that condition for another 10 years, because it includes the particular article in the Protocol which deals with that point. There is something further. I think it was referred to by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander). By a majority decision of one the International Court of Justice at The Hague interpreted the Protocol as forbidding Austria to form a Customs Union with Germany Many of us here, many people on the Continent and a large proportion of the people of Austria believe that Austria's sole economic salvation depends on being able to make an economic Customs Union with Germany. Yet we are definitely preventing Austria from doing the very thing which will put her in a sound financial position.
Secondly, the Financial Secretary said that one of the advantages to Austria is that by this loan she will be able to convert a short-term loan at a high rate of interest into a long-term loan at a lower rate of interest. I do not know what rate of interest the Bank of England is
charging Austria for her loan, but as far as that goes that statement is. perfectly true. But this English loan is only part of the total loan. We naturally have no control over the rates that will be charged for the foreign issue in France. We may be certain that it will be at a rate far in excess of the Government rate in this country. The last internal loan in France was issued at 91 at 4½ per cent. A loan was raised in France a few months ago for Rumania, and the rate was certainly nearer 10 than 6 per cent.
I found in Vienna considerable consternation as to what rates of interest Austria would be charged, on certainly the French portion of her loan. There was a discussion in the Austrian Chamber, and the Chamber passed a resolution that they would not accept a loan unless they first knew upon what conditions it was raised, what commission was to be charged, what the underwriting was to be, and so forth. We may very well find that, although we may be able to float a loan in this country at a comparatively low rate of interest, the rate in France will be so high that the Austrian Parliament will be unable to accept it. In that case our loan will fall to the ground, because we are committed only if France raises a loan at the same time and to the same amount.
There is another point. Some hon. Members on the Socialist Benches have suggested that by this loan and the Protocol we are imposing certain social hardships on the Austrian people. Those best fitted to know, the representatives of the League of Nations in Austria, are of the opinion that this loan does not impose any hardships on the Austrian people. And it is true, I think, to say that Austria has made certain efforts in the last few months. You may say that it is to her interest to do so, that if she was going to get a loan of between£10,000,000 and£12,000,000, it was up to her to show that she was going to take certain steps to put her house in order. It is perfectly true what the hon. Member said, that she has balanced her Budget, including the deficit on the railways. It is perfectly true that she has managed her currency with extraordinary skill. It is true that, to a very large extent, she has reorganised her finances. She is every month attracting a greater number of
tourists to various cities and various places within her boundaries. Her financial position during the past few months, if that is any criterion, has definitely improved.
In spite of all those facts—and I give them because they are assured me by those in a position to know—I must admit that I came away, and I believe the majority of people in Austria would agree with me, profoundly pessimistic as to the future conditions of Austria. It may well be argued that we are giving Austria this loan in order that worse things may not come upon us. That is, of course, a counsel of despair. Some hon. Members imagine that Austria will have at its disposal for various purposes a large portion of this loan. That is not the case. A very small amount of the loan will be available to Austria; 100,000,000 schillings, or more than one-third of it, goes immediately to the Bank of England. A very large portion of the French loan is already earmarked with the Bank of International Settlement for various payments, and I think it will be found that a very small portion remains by which Austria may stabilise her currency or support her financial position.
In conclusion, I only want to say that I believe a great many hon. Members hold the same view as I do, that nothing except a radical alteration of either the political or economic frontiers of Europe is a solution of the Austrian problem, and it seems to me rather paradoxical that all the great Powers during the past few years have been spending their energies in various Danubian conferences in trying to restore, at any rate, the economic hegemony of the old Austrian Empire which they spent so much blood and money in order to destroy. The right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary said—I suppose it is right that the Foreign Secretary should say on questions dealing with arms traffic in Yugoslavia—" Far be it from me or this Government to interfere in any way with a friendly Power." That may be a perfectly proper statement for a Foreign Secretary to make, but my view is that until we interfere or somebody else interferes very radically with the present map of Europe, we are not going to get any solution of the political, economic or disarmament problems which confront Europe and the world to-day. We know
that the economic structure of Europe to-day is a complete anomaly.
The hon. Member said that Vienna was a metropolis like London, but he failed to add that it is a metropolis without an Empire, and to-day there are some 180,000 unemployed, out of a population of about 2,000,000 in Vienna, who never can possibly hope, under the existing map of Europe, to find work again. I do not think that it could fall to the lot of any pedestrian to have a more depressing experience than to walk in the streets of Vienna to-day, and I think it is true to say that the condition of a large number of people in Vienna to-day is definitely worse than at any time immediately following the War. However, having expressed my doubts and misgivings in regard to this Measure, I perfectly realise that we are committed to it, and that without any doubt the Government will get the Third Reading of this Bill to-day. Therefore, I suppose that, as we have got to give the money, we may still hope and trust that, although by or through it conditions in Austria will not improve, we may hope that, at any rate, it will coincide with a new era in Austrian affairs, and perhaps that a brighter period may be ensuing for Central Europe, whose financial resources must always be so closely associated with those of Austria and Vienna. Although I do not think that this Measure, in itself, will do much to promote that better era, we can, at any rate, if we are going to pass this Bill, add our hopes that it may be so.

4.7 p.m.

Captain FULLER: I was very interested to hear the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet) in connection with the depreciation of the Austrian schilling. I do not wish to anticipate the reply of the Minister, hut in the Committee stage of this Bill last week, I pointed out that already before the Austrian Government there was a Measure which proposed to raise the Customs Duties of Austria by 22 per cent. to compensate for the depreciation in the Austrian schilling, and if the hon. Member is able to give us a little more information on the matter, it does seem a very relevant point in this discussion. When we were discussing this Bill last week I was surprised to hear the
hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) express his surprise that Tory opposition to this Bill should come at that stage, after the House had passed the Financial Resolution, but before he finished his remarks it transpired that he was really apprehensive that we were using this Bill as a pivot on which to discuss the necessity for the revision of the Austrian Treaty, which has placed Austria in the straight waistcoat in which she finds herself to-day. I was very glad to see a Member of his own party disillusion him on that point, and I can only say, as far as I am concerned at any rate, that it is not my intention to do so, but rather to point out the absolute futility of continuing these loans to Austria at this juncture.
In my opinion, for what it is worth, there are bound to be reactions to the policy we are pursuing. I think it is true to say that in what is happening here, we are conniving at the transfer of a private debt, which was incurred without the consent of this House between the Austrian Government and the Bank of England, and we are conniving at the transfer of this liability to the responsibility of the British taxpayer. I do not think that there can be the slightest doubt about that. If the Austrian Government had floated this loan in the money market in the ordinary way—and I am not suggesting that it is at all a desirable thing to do—the subscribers to it, whether they were the Bank of England or the general public, would have taken upon themselves the whole risk, and, of course, they would have taken that risk with their eyes open, and without placing any responsibility whatever on the British taxpayer. As a result of that, any default which might have occurred in connection with the loan raised would have been borne by them. Of course, there might have been, and I daresay there would have been, a general commiseration with the bondholders, but certainly the matter would have ended there. But when the community as a whole, through its representatives in this House, assumes a financial responsibility, the burden of that whole loan is very widely distributed, and if default occurred, as it may well in this case, then it would mean nothing more and nothing less than increased taxation, either direct or indirect, and a good deal of ill-feeling with, possibly, I think, international repercussions.
I do not wish to discuss the question of the American Debt; that, of course, would be irrelevant to this discussion, but I suggest that the feeling which has been created by it is just the kind of feeling which might be created by any country defaulting in any circumstances, and especially in circumstances referring to a loan which that country may have raised with the Government of another country. I think it cannot be denied that the contracting of a debt in any circumstances does not generate what one might call an all-consuming love as between the two parties to the contract, and in many cases the repercussions are very far-reaching. So that when discussing the question of the debt, I would like to take a look at the plight in which the citizens of the United States find themselves as a result of their own lending abroad. If we take their own testimony —and I think that is good enough for the purpose of this Debate—we shall see that in Europe alone since the post-war period, they have themselves lost the stupendous sum of£3,000,000,000, but nobody has worried, except, of course, the poor unfortunate bondholders, who took the risk, I imagine, with their eyes open, and the Governments of the countries concerned have pursued the even tenour of their way and probably winked at the whole proceeding. If we compare the War Debts with these loans it is obvious that they are comparatively small, I would, therefore, like to protest strongly against the Government's assumption of this liability which has been made possible under the guarantee of this Bill.
The second objection I would like to raise concerns the effect upon our export trade which, in my view, will be greatly accentuated by the grant of this loan. I think at this late stage that most people are agreed that one of the fundamental causes of the world depression to-day is international indebtedness, and I am making no distinction between commercial and War Debts, although, I think, commercial debts are much more important. It has been our policy in the last 150 years or more to strive—quite wrongly as I think—for what has been called and is still called a favourable balance of trade, and, when we have got it, we have indulged in the policy of lending abroad by the colossal export of
goods on credit. In this way, I have no doubt, we have conferred untold benefits on the world and have ourselves partaken of them. Incidentally, at the same time, we have managed very effectively to ruin our own agriculture.
I wonder if the boomerang effect which that misguided policy is now having on our trade is sufficiently appreciated. One continually hears, even in this House, the statement that such-and-such a country has a favourable balance of trade with this country, and the request that some steps should be taken in the direction of a levelling-up process as it were. But what can we expect if we make loans abroad either from our own favourable trade balance or by the issue of loans and the export of capital goods? We are, quite naturally entitled to receive, and in fact do receive, imports of goods in payment of interest on those loans. What we have to grasp is that those interest payments can only be accepted in goods which, as an hon. Member has remarked, we do not want, and unless the loans made increase the national income of the borrowing country, it is evident that their standard of living must be depressed to meet the charges.
The debtor countries, if they are to meet their loan charges must obviously have a favourable balance of trade—an excess of exports over imports. As we know, there are only two ways by which that can be done. The country will increase its exports, if it is able to do so, or, if it is not able to do so, as is the case with Austria to-day, it must of necessity reduce its imports. The tragedy of the depression in the world to-day is that no country can expand its exports because nobody wants them, and every country is endeavouring to restrict its imports in order to meet the liabilities which all debtor countries must shoulder or else incur fresh loans.

Mr. J. JONES: Three cheers for Tariff Reform.

Captain FULLER: We, as the greatest creditor country in the world still, are feeling the results of all this on our own export trade and I suggest that the question of this Austrian loan is extremely relevant to that trade. In spite of all the loans which we have showered on Austria since the War the financial equilibrium of that country, as far as I understand it, is even now in doubt. Since 1928 Austria's
Budget deficit has increased considerably. In that year it stood at 172,000,000 schillings and in 1931 it had risen to 235,000,000 schillings. In 1932 it was hoped that there would be a surplus of 2,000,000 schillings. But it is also true that all these years since the War Austria has been reiterating her intention of balancing her Budget—as she does in one of the conditions attached to this loan—and of putting her house in order, if we will give her more loans, while her debt position, as far as I understand it, goes from bad to worse. Her pre-War debt is placed at 268,000,000 schillings and her War debt at the small figure of 280,000 schillings but the actual debt incurred by the Austrian Republic since the War has already reached the stupendous sum of 2,129,000,000 schillings.
The point I wish to make is that the more we lend her now the more we worsen her position. Paradoxical though it may seem, it is the fact that we have reached a position in the world in which the creditor nations are not in a position to receive and the debtor nations are not in a position to pay. In addition to all this indebtedness and the great increase in her liabilities, Austria's trade position appears to be more hopeless than ever. In the last five years her adverse balance of trade has been increasing and the fact is evident that she can only maintain herself by resort to further borrowing. But the more we lend her to-day the worse we make her position and we ourselves suffer in consequence because there is only one way in which we can receive the interest payments and that is by the importation of more goods from Austria.
When the Bill was in the Committee stage I referred to Austria's action in further restricting imports from this country. I would like to point out that Austria at the moment, apart from the proposal which, is now before her own legislature to increase her customs duties by 22 per cent., is already restricting the importation of goods from this country, particularly Lancashire cotton goods and textiles. If she is doing this before getting this loan, are we not entitled to assume that there will be further restrictions if she gets the loan, because it will be necessary for her either to expand her exports—which she cannot do—or restrict her imports? That is the policy which we are obliging her to follow more
and more to the detriment of our own trade.
It has been said that we are not providing Austria with any new money and that, consequently, there will be no further liability as far as we are concerned. That, of course, is technically true but the fact remains that the other countries which are parties to this agreement are providing new money and, as a result, we are increasing the liability of Austria and she will be obliged, more and more, to restrict her importation of goods. What I do not like in connection with this Bill is that Austria is discriminating directly against cotton goods from this country. I object to the Bill because the Government are assuming a liability which, I maintain, they have no right to assume and are putting that liability on to the burden of the taxpayer in the event of default, which seems to me most likely, and, secondly and what is more important to me, because the new liabilities which Austria is shouldering under the terms of this loan are going to handicap our trade increasingly. For those reasons I shall support the rejection of this Bill which I understand is to be moved by the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams).

4.24 p.m.

Mr. LAMBERT: It is very gratifying to me as one of the two or three Members who opposed this Bill in its earlier stages to find that opposition to its provisions is growing in the House. The Prime Minister said the other day that more than enough had been said, but I think if we could go on discussing this Bill there would develop a very strong opposition to this loan. I say quite candidly that had there been a real Opposition in this House this loan never would and never could have gone through. I am not ashamed of my Liberalism, and as an old Liberal I object to these loans being compulsorily foisted on the taxpayers. If Austria wants to raise money here, voluntarily, in the open market, well and good, but here it is proposed to fasten compulsorily on the taxpayers the responsibility for this loan. That, to my mind, is an entirely objectionable principle. Let the people of this country spend their own money. They understand the spending of it far better than the Government. That is a principle which I want to inculcate as far as I
can. It is about 30 years ago since the old Liberal principle of allowing money to fructify in the pockets of the people was discarded. The process began with the Irish Land Bill. We need not discuss that now, but I was one of those who voted against it.
We have had a great number of these loans since the Armistice. I have been referring to the finance accounts of the United Kingdom and I find that since the Armistice we have been ladling out vast sums of money with the greatest profusion. Hon. Members will find it an interesting study to look up those accounts and to see the outstanding loans. There is the 1923 loan to Austria. The amount outstanding is£10,164,000. Then there is the Palestine loan,£4,475,000; the Tanganyika loan,£2,070,000; another Tanganyika loan,£3,000,000 and the Nyasaland loan,£2,000,000. Then we have, in addition to these, what are called relief and reconstruction loans issued since the War. There is Belgium,£9,000,000 and the Belgian Congo,£3,600,000. I cannot understand why we should advance that sum to the Belgian Congo. There appears to be no reason for it whatever. It is beyond me. Then there is Poland£4,000,000 and Rumania£2,000,000. There is a total of nearly£30,000,000 involved in these relief and reconstruction loans. I object to these loans and I hope that this will be the last of them. If it is not, I think the Government will find that, with all their great majority, they will have even more difficulty with any future proposal of the kind than they have had in this matter. I want to warn the Government that in this matter they are offending their own supporters. I happen to have been in my constituency in the early part of January and I met a professional man there, a doctor who was wrestling with his Income Tax return. His remarks about expenditure were not complimentary—

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: Order!

Mr. LAMBERT: I beg the hon. and learned Member's pardon.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I thought the right hon. Gentleman was going to cite some of the remarks.

Mr. LAMBERT: No, we in Devon are polite and Parliamentary, but his re-
marks were not Parliamentary and if he had had a few Members of the Government under his care—well I do not know what the result might be. There is another objection to the loan at this moment. It is bound to hamper our negotiations with the United States. Do not let any hon. Members sitting on the Government benches imagine that they are going to have an easy task. A friend of mine sent me from the United States only a day or two ago a book that is being circulated freely over that country. It is a story of "The rape of American credit." I have read it, and it is a very powerful presentation of the American debt question, urging that no remission of debt should take place. What answer can our people make? I think this loan has come at a most unfortunate moment. Is it right that the taxpayers of this country should come to the rescue of a private institution like the Bank of England? It was never done in my younger days in this House. Everyone seemed to have had great confidence in the wisdom of the Bank of England, and here we know that they advanced something like£6,000,000 or£7,000,000 on a weekly loan to the Austrians. Why should the taxpayers of this country be responsible for an unwise and injudicious loan made by the Bank of England? What is the reason of it? I object to it. Is it any wonder that the Budget is going to be a difficult one, if we go on in this way?
This loan is very bad also from the point of view that the only way in which you will get a change in the management of the Bank of England is by squeezing the pockets of the stockholders of the Bank of England. Then they will change, but if you go on guaranteeing their losses, they will never change. If we could in any way emancipate the Treasury from this influence of the Bank of England, it would really have a good effect. We know that the Bank of England's policy has been disastrous. I understand that they are rebuilding the Bank of England, and all that I can say is that I hope they will finish it off with a statue in gold to the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), who helped them to restore the Gold Standard in 1925.

Mr. BRACKEN: it was not his fault.

Mr. LAMBERT: He was the facile dupe of the Bank of England. In the "Times" this morning there was a communication from that paper's New York correspondent as follows:
The assumption that most of the earmarking (of gold) has been for the Bank of England has aroused some comment to the effect that Britain seems to have overstated her case in the War Debts discussion, considering the ability she has shown to accumulate gold since December.
That is the Bank of England policy, and I suggest to the Government in all sincerity that it would be wise for them to dissociate themselves from the Bank of England policy, which is really placing obstacles in the way of their own negotiations with the United States. I want to be quite frank and friendly when I warn the Government about these things. This point came out this morning in a newspaper with regard, not to the ultimatum, but to the Note that has been sent to Austria by the British and French Governments. Here is a statement from a correspondent in Vienna, who says:
I learn that the Austrian Vice-Chancellor, Dr. Winkler, made to-day, at a meeting of his party. … a very important statement indicating that Austria has decided to reject the demands in the Anglo-French Note. The statement is so clear that it can be accepted as a definite indication that Austria has decided to cut the links with France, Great Britain and the so-called 'League policy' which has dominated Austria since the recnstruction loan of 1923, and to throw in her lot with the Italian Revisionist bloc and Germany.
Is there any truth in that statement? What is the demand behind this Bill? Is it going to embroil us with the other Powers? There is certainly something, otherwise this very reputable correspondent—I take this cutting from the "Daily Telegraph"—would not have stated that Austria has definitely decided to cut the links with France, Great Britain, and the League policy. We know that these loans are the League policy. Is that statement true? May we have some information? It is time we did get some information as to what is the policy of the Government and of our country in these Danubian provinces.
I object entirely to the principle of these loans because it is an invasion of the liberty of the British taxpayer to spend his money as he likes; it is perpetuating the pernicious policy of endeavouring to solve political difficulties
with public money; it is bolstering up a private company that has made a bad investment; it will render more difficult the American Debt revision, and it involves interference in the domestic affairs of another nation. I object to all that. I do not propose to move the rejection of the Bill at this stage, but if any hon. Member does move its rejection, and there is a Division, I shall go into the Lobby against the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh! "] I have never been afraid of my convictions yet. I have been here a long time, and I want to educate the younger generation now. I object to this thing, but, of course, it has gone too far now. If it could have been tackled in the early stages by a really efficient and vigorous Opposition, I do not believe that this Bill would ever have passed.

4.37 p.m.

Colonel GRETTON: I agree with what the right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) has said, that the whole principle on which this Bill has been brought forward is unsound and objectionable, and that it ought to be protested against. We are still in some doubt—at least I am—as to what is the exact position. Apparently the chief bank in Vienna got into financial difficulties in the early part of the year 1931, and the Bank of England came to the rescue and made a very substantial advance. The question has been asked again and again: Did the Bank of England act as an independent institution on that occasion, dealing only with financial matters, in which it is interested, or did it take that action at the instigation or with the approval, tacit or expressed, of the Government of that day? That is a plain question, and on the answer to it depends whether this House should honour the credit which it is now being asked to give. If it was an act of public policy following the directions, however given, of the Government of the day, then this House is committed to some extent, whoever that Government was or whatever its policy was.
There is another question which is in my mind, and I think also in the minds of other hon. and right hon. Members who have been trying to follow these Debates. Has Austria, the Government, or the bank acting on behalf of the Austrian Government, had the whole of the money
which we are now asked to guarantee, or is the loan contemplated to relieve the Bank of England of liability for money already advanced to Austria? In addition to that advance, is there any further sum going to the credit of Austria; that is to say, has the money all gone already, or is there some margin of new money to be guaranteed by this country?
The right hon. Member for South Molton talked of the policy of the League of Nations. We all know that the League of Nations policy may be useful, but as for its financial guarantee, it is worth nothing at all. I seem to remember very clearly, when the first Austrian loan was floated on the British market, that a very great part of the inducement to subscribe was the statement that it was under the auspices of the League of Nations. That was a mere phrase, worthless and valueless as affecting any financial investment.
I think it is very pertinent indeed that this matter should be understood. The Bank of England has, with or without the encouragement and consent of the Government of the day, made this advance, and the Bank of England is liable for the advance of a very considerable sum of money to. Austria. I believe it is contemplated to float a loan and to ask the British public to subscribe to that loan in order to relieve the Bank of England, and I suppose it is considered that the loan would not receive much support from the public unless there was some other guarantee than that of the League of Nations. I feel very strongly that the whole of this thing is wrong in principle. It is a secret monetary transaction that ought not to encumber the policy of this country at the present time, and if any of my hon. Friends will go into the Lobby with me, I shall vote against the Bill.

4.44 p.m.

Mr. J. JONES: No one can say that those of us on these benches have been lacking in sympathy with Austria. After the Great War we practically turned Austria into a cul-de-sac, and industrially and politically she became the orphan of the storm. As a result, she was compelled to enter into certain financial arrangements. Nobody in this House really believes that Austria can ever pay back her debts. She has borrowed from
various countries, and those countries are holding the baby. Austria is a buffer State and she stands between Germany, Prance and Italy. As a consequence, those Governments which are talking so glibly about their financial responsibilities find themselves having to feed the baby, and they turn round and say that we must find the money necessary to redeem their liabilities which they incurred in days gone by. As a member of the Labour party, I object to the loan. We cannot afford to find money for our own people, and therefore we ought not to be able to find money for anybody else. We have been told by a prominent member of the Government that it will take us 10 years to get back to something like normality in employment. Yet we 'are so generous that we are prepared to lend money to anybody except our own people. I know that we are spending£100,000,000 a year on unemployment benefit, but that is only an insurance against the possibility of revolution. If you cannot find work for the people, naturally you are creating a fund of discontent which will eventually break out.
We on these benches want to understand why loans are being made to other countries. I have heard it stated in this House that£130,000,000 has already been advanced. To whom and what for? This particular case is supposed to be a guarantee to the Bank of England shareholders. Whatever happens, therefore, they will be all right: whatever money the Bank lends to Austria, they will get back. What they lose on the swings they will get back on the roundabouts, whatever happens to Austria. We are now paying for the great mistake—I do not say that it was anything more than that—that was made when we made the Treaty. We have turned Europe into a cockpit worse than ever Belgium was in the War. We have made a corridor, and we have created such international complications that it will take us another 100 years to put them right. I do not pretend to understand all about international complications; all I understand is that if you create barriers between nations and people because of racial, religious, or other antagonisms, you build up greater barriers. This Bill is one of the consequences. Austria is down and out. It is not so much Austria as Vienna, one city which has to carry all the problems of an inter-mixture of races,
so that they have had to come to us for money; and because we know that we would be involved with other nations if anything happens to Austria we agree to pay. Other countries will want their money back, but we are not Shylocks; we are skylarks. We do not expect to get our money back. What the Government are doing is to pay an insurance premium for the future of Europe; they are finding the money to remedy the position made by the Treaties after the War. We shall have to go on doing it.
We can afford to pay only a few hundred millions for our own people, but we could afford to spend£8,000,000,000 in the War. That money had to be borrowed and the people who lent the money are getting their money back, but the great mass of the people of the country are not getting their money back; all they are getting is poverty and unemployment. The Labour party are not prepared to recognise a loan of this character. I want to remind the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) that he first started this policy. I am only a common or garden Member of the House; I am only a back bencher— if I were much further back I would be on my back in Palace Yard—but as I see it, while there is no money for anything in this country or the possibility of finding employment for our own people, we are at the same time willing to float loans all over the world for the purpose of guaranteeing the interest of the shareholders of the Bank of England. That game has gone on long enough. In the words of Abraham Lincoln:
You can fool some of the people some of the time; you can fool some of the people all the time; but you cannot fool all the people all the time.

4.52 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: My hon. Friend the Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) is becoming very modest in his old age, but he very often represents the opinion of the man in the street on some of these big matters. I regret that the Third Reading of this Bill has been used for some illegitimate purposes. One hon. Member made a. speech on the financial position not only of Europe, but of the whole world, and I hope that on the Third Reading of a Measure like this we are not going to have much more of that type of speech. I look upon this Bill as a Measure which
one might describe as thoroughly tiresome. In the first place, it is one of those financial Bills which has to go through all the procedure of Resolution, Second Reading, and Report stage before we get to the actual Bill. It is also one of those legacies from the past for which one cannot blame the Government very much. It is one of those Measures for which the Minister in charge cannot get much credit. It is a typical Under-Secretary's Bill. I have been an Under-Secretary, and I know the feelings of my hon. Friend. I hope that he will not think that any of the criticisms made on the Bill are levelled at him. I should like to have seen the Chancellor of the Exchequer sitting by him and helping him out of the difficulties which ought to be on his own back.
The point I wish to make is with regard to the relationship of the Treasury and the Bank of England. There is a mystical union. Mystical unions are difficult to understand. Like the Trinity and the quantum theory, they are impossible for the ordinary layman to understand. Mystical unions are all right, but when there are children therefrom, they become tiresome, and in this case we are left with a baby that is going to cost us£5,000,000. There is an old Spanish proverb which says that when it rains we all get wet. That applies very much to banks. All banks hold together; they are a great trade union, and when one bank is about to fail, they instantly run to the assistance of the failing bank, because, if one goes down, they all suffer very much. In this particular case a leading bank of Austria was in trouble, and it was only right and proper that the Bank of England should go to its assistance. But if it had been successful by that assistance, is it not true to say that the Bank of England and all other banks would have benefited there-from? When the thing failed, however, apparently the Treasury had to carry the baby. That is a policy of "heads I win, tails you lose."
I do not expect the Financial Secretary at the present moment to tell us what is the exact relationship between the Treasury and the Bank of England, but I hope that at a later date, when we come to the Budget or some other big Debate on finance, we shall be told a little more about this curious relationship. As I see the right hon. Member
For Epping (Mr. Churchill) sitting there, I hope that he will be able to draw the curtain aside a little bit and tell us about this curious relationship, which has upset the House of Commons and from which the Government have derived very little benefit, but a great deal of abuse up and down the country through no fault of their own. I hope that the Financial Secretary will try and help us in this matter.

4.56 p.m.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words, "upon this day six months."
In moving this Amendment, I can assure the Government that I do it in no state of hostility to them. I would like to join with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) in paying my tribute to the skill with which the Financial Secretary has got this Bill through the proceedings of this House. I do not think that any Member of the House has yet spoken on behalf of this Bill, unless it may be one of the variety of Socialists who sit on the Front Opposition Bench. Might not the Government accept my Amendment? Might they not agree that if the Bill were postponed until August, it would help them out of the difficulty. There is a very difficult financial problem for the Government to meet this year, and might not it be easier if they stuck to their original policy of September, 1931, which was that there should be no outside loan, and that they should do everything possible to discourage loans until the financial position of the country was settled in two or three of its major aspects. These are points which the Government might well consider. How can ordinary Members go to their constituents and explain the position of a Government which, having laid down that foreign loans should not be imposed, go and do it themselves?
It is a curious thing that this guaranteed loan—no money passes at present, and we hope that it never will— was made in rather a hurry last autumn. We were suddenly presented with this in the House of Commons. There is a point which has been emphasised to-day about which we are not quite clear. We are
definitely laying down certain terms which, in the opinion of many people, bear hardly on the Austrian people. The last time this question was raised, the Financial Secretary said, with reference to the Protocol:
Nothing is added to it either in substance or kind." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1933; col. 1320, Vol. 274]
That may apply to the terms of the treaty, but not to the terms of the loan, and it is only the terms of the loan— that is, the original loan of 1922–42—about which I and others have ever asked. The present loan runs from 1932 to 1952. In other words, a period of 10 years has been added, in which the Austrians will be bound financially under the Bill. I do not say that the terms of the treaty are altered in any way, but Austria is bound financially for a longer term. The second point which I am advancing in support of the rejection of the Bill is based on the statement made the other day by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury:
Austria can make commercial treaties about tariffs either to lower them or to tighten them." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1933; col. 1320, Vol. 274.]
That is a very curious point, because it was clearly laid down on the 3rd of January that the loan would be subject to certain stipulations and the Protocol under which the earlier League loan to Austria was issued, which was held by the International Court of Justice at The Hague, in a majority judgment, to be inconsistent with the proposed Customs Union with Germany. It has been clearly laid down that Austria cannot enter into anything in the nature of a Customs Union with Germany. I have no brief for Austria or any other nation. It is not the duty of the House of Commons to work more on behalf of one nation than another, but I say at the present time that we could not get any support in the country—and I think there is very little in the House of Commons for it—for anything which would make it more difficult for the nations in the centre of Europe, of whose difficulties we have heard throughout this Debate, to get out of their difficulties. I hope the Bill will be thrown out. I do not think it would hurt the Government in any way to accept this proposal to put off the Third Beading till the summer. All the terms of the Bill are
inconsistent with the dignity of the House and the position which we as Members should take up.
There is another point which has already been mentioned this afternoon. The Executive of this country are getting into the habit of deciding things at Geneva and other places and then presenting those decisions to this House in the form of a Bill, and saying that everything has been fixed and settled and must be carried through. The Attorney-General told us the other night that there was nothing in a certain Bill which could bind the House of Commons in any way, nor is there in this Bill, and I would like the House on this occasion to show that it has independence and to stand up for its own position. This is only a small affair, comparatively, and one which is very difficult to understand, but if the House would only make it plain to-day that it is not going to have this kind of thing shoved on its shoulders that might prove to be a useful example for the next year or two. I watched the Coalition Government fairly carefully, and I know that it was this kind of thing which smashed that Government, and it is creating feeling against the present Government. I am not hostile to the Government, but I am bitterly hostile to the Government doing things which are in direct contradiction to their own policy, which have not, as I believe, the support of the country and which are not in the best interests of the country as a whole.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. BRACKEN: I beg to second the Amendment.
I have the very greatest pleasure in seconding the Amendment so ably moved by the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), and I would join with him in congratulating the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on the adroitness and the courtesy with which he has conducted this Debate. I do not think the House has been very well treated this afternoon. I see that the Lord President of the Council is now on the Treasury Bench, but for quite two hours the Financial Secretary has been a Parliamentary Casabianca:
The boy stood on the burning deck,
Whence all but he had fled.
For an hour not a single Minister has been sitting beside him, though on an
occasion like this the Financial Secretary does require, I will not say reinforcing, but the moral support of his colleagues when we are passing one of the worst Bills ever presented to the House. This is our last opportunity of criticising this utterly unjustifiable Measure, and in a forlorn hope of being able to secure sufficient opposition to enable us to march into the Lobby against it I would like to recapitulate the arguments which have been marshalled so well against this loan. In the first place, this Bill implements a deal done behind the back of Parliament to liquefy a frozen advance made by an all too powerful English banker to an Austrian finance house which, incidentally, has lent a great deal of money to our own trade competitors. There are many industries in this country encountering the strong competition of industries subsidised by the Credit Anstalt, and they must feel rather alarmed to find that the central banking institution of this country subsidised the Credit Anstalt, which, in turn, subsidised traders who are competing with them in the markets of Central Europe.
This Measure is plainly and simply a Bank of England Relief Bill, to save losses which would otherwise be incurred by the Bank of England. This point has been well put by the hon. and gallant Member for Burton-on-Trent (Colonel Gretton). When this loan was made it may be asked, did the British Government give the Bank of England any assurance that it would, either directly or indirectly, recoup the Bank for any loss sustained? The Financial Secretary says that the Bank of England got no such undertaking, and I feel sure that information is accurate. We have, therefore, no legal or moral responsibility in this matter. There is no more justification for our paying the bad debts of the Bank of England than for paying the bad debts of the Joint Stock Banks, or even of the Birmingham Municipal Bank, whose pious founder is the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. I wonder what the House would think if a Member came along with a proposal to pay the bad debts of the Joint Stock Banks or the Birmingham Municipal Bank?
There is another point I wish to make. We have been rather hostile to the Government all through the proceedings on this Measure. Though that gave us very great pain, we did our duty man-
fully. I think there is an opportunity for a compromise. We dislike the Bill, but we are reasonable people, and so we suggest a compromise. I should not like to ask the Financial Secretary, on his own initiative, to accept our proposal, tout as the Lord President of the Council, than whom there is no more powerful figure in the Government, is present, perhaps we can have a word or two from him. The suggestion is quite simple. The loan to the Credit Anstalt was made in July, 1931, at, I believe, a very high rate of interest. I believe the total sum received by way of interest by the Bank of England is£400,000—or between£400,000 and£500,000. Who gets that great sum? The Bank of England. Does it share it with the Treasury? Most certainly not. It only shares its liabilities with the Treasury.
The plain facts are that the bank has received more than£400,000 by way of interest on this advance, and has now devised a scheme whereby the British people must repay the full amount of the advance—while the bank takes the interest. This one-way bargain really outshylocks Shylock. Indeed, it makes his loans appear to be the outpourings of an improvident philanthropist. I therefore, ask the Financial Secretary to put this suggestion before the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If his lord and master, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, insists on paying the bad debts of the Bank of England, cannot he get one concession from the Governor? If the public have to pay the full amount of the loan granted to the Creditanstalt, may they not have the interest which the Bank of England has received on this loan? That is a perfectly fair proposition. I know it is difficult for the Financial Secretary to accept suggestions made on the Floor of the House, but I hope that after he has consulted with the Chancellor of the Exchequer they will be able to announce to the House that although we have risked a lot of money by this Bank of England advance to Austria we can still have the interest. I think this is a grave point and I hope the Members of the House will insist on this modification of the present arrangement. I do not think anyone could object to the argument that as we are taking the responsibility for the whole of the money the Bank of England ought to concede us the interest.
The Bill has been recommended to the House on a very slender basis of justification. No one has really attempted to uphold it. The Financial Secretary has done his duty in a most agreeable way, but he did not approach that Box with the keenness and fervour which he showed in putting the case for Protection or some of the other things in which he really believes. The loan has been commended to the House on the ground that it is a great act of financial statesmanship. I do not know what constitutes a financial statesman. I have been trying very hard to find out.

Mr. J. JONES: You—

Mr. BRACKEN: The hon. Member must not interrupt me. His jokes after closing hours may appeal to some people, but they do not appeal to me. Again I ask "What is a financial statesman?"—because nobody knows. Perhaps a financial statesman is a banker, with an unbounded megalomania, who interferes in political affairs, who must have a finger in every pie and a headline in every newspaper. There is a lot of uneasiness concerning the adventures of central bankers in foreign politics, and the part they are playing in hopelessly speculative industrial ventures in England. If this Bill is the quintessence of financial statesmanship, then God help the poor taxpayer, because it is quite certain that the Treasury will not.
This Bill raises a number of other points which have been dealt with extraordinarily well by hon. Members in all parts of the House. The right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert), who sat in this House with Gladstone, and has not changed either his views or his arguments since, and who is one of the finest specimens of Liberals in England, came forward in opposition to this whole proposal, and my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay, an adjacent but less attractive part of Devonshire, has moved the rejection of the Bill.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: What did you say?

Mr. BRACKEN: I cannot enter into a discussion now concerning the geographical features of Devonshire. I am glad to see the Foreign Secretary is now here, because there is a point in this Bill which rather concerns him. Only a few days ago I read in a newspaper
that the British and the French Governments had sent a severe reproof to Austria for her breach of the Treaty of St. Germain by assisting the smuggling of arms into Hungary, and I think our Foreign Secretary suggested, or perhaps he required, that those munitions should be destroyed. Further, in his excellent legal way he required an affidavit from the Austrian Government that the munitions would be destroyed. That is the report which I read in the "Times" the other day. I do not know whether it is true or not, but it raises a very interesting point. If we do not trust the word of Austria in that matter, and ask for an affidavit, why do we lend Austria a lot of money? I hope the Financial Secretary will answer that point, because I do not think the Foreign Secretary will intervene. Furthermore, the spectacle of the Foreign Secretary with a big stick in one hand and a cheque-book in the other, as he appears in this Austrian loan affair, is as absurd as it is censurable.
A new point has been raised in this Debate by the right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert). He said that the Austrian loan would cause a great deal of comment in the United States. He is perfectly right. It has done so already. I have been reading American newspapers, some of which are asking how European Governments can justify lending a large sum in gold to Austria at a time when they are lecturing America on the impossibility of discharging inter-Governmental Debts in gold. That is a relevant point, and it should be taken into consideration by the Government before they give their final answer to-night.
There is another point that we ought to consider in regard to this loan, and in connection with the shocking prophecy about unemployment made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer a few days ago. He foresaw 10 years of acute unemployment. I ask hon. Members quite seriously: Are you willing to vote large sums to Austria's London banker while you are slashing the standard of livelihood of your own people? I want hon. Members to weigh that consideration very carefully. The slums of Vienna have been rebuilt largely out of the loans advanced by British taxpayers. The sum that we are asked to vote at the present time would very greatly help to recon-
dition or rebuild the slums of London, slums that I know very well, suppurating filth; slums which cry out to Heaven for removal, and yet the Government can do nothing. They say that they are too poor, or they say: "We can do nothing." I ask hon. Members, in view of the Government's attitude towards expenditure on slum clearance and other social services, how can they justify this Austrian Loan Bill, or this Bank of England relief Bill, which is before the House?
We are told that the Treasury's poverty prevents the Government spending money on housing. I think that that is a very odd argument. We see that the Treasury is apparently rich enough to thrust gifts upon Austria's London bank, which is now spending millions on erecting an ornate eyesore in the City. What sort of Government is this? Their policy is to use a slang word, to bunch Austria's banker while slashing teachers', soldiers' and sailors' salaries and the salaries of other Civil Service employés. They are quite willing to put a razor through those people's salaries, but when Austria's banker comes along, they must obey and pay him. I think that is very bad policy from a Government that is boasting of its determination to hold the scales evenly between all classes. There is one further point. The victims of some of your ill-contrived economies, of which you were all boasting so strongly a few months ago, but which you are regretful about now—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, we are not! "] The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont) does not regret anything, but a lot of people regret the hon. Member for Aylesbury. The victims of some of your ill-contrived economies will say, with perfect truth, that this is an international and not a national Government, and that the foreigner's banker comes first and your own people come last.

5.19 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: I am glad to see that the Foreign Secretary is here, because we have had a good many different reasons given for this loan, beginning with humanitarian reasons; it then came down to be some kind of City transaction. It has been a subject of criticism from almost every angle in this House. It has the oldest Liberal and the oldest Conservative against it. We really should
have something more authoritative from a member of the Cabinet as to the policy which is behind it.

Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: It was your Government's policy.

Mr. ATTLEE: The hon. Baronet says that it was our Government's policy. Unfortunately, he has not been present during the Debate all day.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: I have taken part in every stage of this Debate, and I have listened to every word to-day. I put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Financial Resolution was introduced. I asked him if we had any moral responsibility in the matter and he replied that he was not a member of the last Government, that the proposals came from the Bank of England which were made at the time when Lord Snowden, the colleague of the hon. Member for Limehouse, was in that Government, and that he had no doubt that the Government approved the proposal.

Mr. ATTLEE: The hon. Baronet undoubtedly heard that, but he must have fallen asleep since then, because it has been stated quite clearly in the House to-day that the proposal for this loan came from the Bank of England. It is not a policy of any Government. That Government acquiesced in it, but took no responsibility as the Government of the day. Even if the hon. Baronet likes to say that Lord Snowden approved of it, my withers are unwrung because the Lord Snowden is a possession of the hon. Baronet. He will not hit me by hitting Lord Snowden, I can assure him.

Mr. McGOVERN: Not now!

Mr. J. JONES: Nor any other time. [Interruption.]

Mr. McGOVERN: I come into the House sober anyhow. I do not treat it with contempt.

Mr. ATTLEE: Whether this matter began in the last Government or the present Government is really an aside. I want to ask a question as to the Government's policy in this matter. If the matter began with the policy of the Socialist Government, at any rate that was a Government which, while lending
money to Austria, did not refuse advances to people in distress in this country. We have it on record that this Government is refusing every kind of scheme in this country. I have a letter from my own borough council, which is not one with a Labour majority but which has the strongest possible views on this very question of the Government turning down every attempt to develop our own country. If this had occurred in June, 1931, this proposal would have been attacked as part of a profligate policy. Hon. Members would have said that we were ladling out money all round. The present Government, while they are continuing to ladle out money, as we thought to Austria but apparently to the Bank of England, are refusing altogether to help our own people. I want to ask whether conditions are altogether the same as when this loan was brought forward. I do not profess to have a great inside knowledge of foreign politics, but I should not have thought that this was the best time to lend money. I understand that the Bank of England might want to get out of their bargain as soon as possible.
There has been a good deal of inconsistency in the points that have been put forward from the Treasury Bench. Either this loan is well secured, or it is not. We have had a statement that it is well secured, and we have had a statement that Austria had not defaulted on two loans. I noticed that the Financial Secretary based himself only on two loans. It seems to me like suggesting that it was quite all right to lend money to a man because he always paid his tailor's bill, but saying nothing about any other bill. The Financial Secretary did not go into the general matter. I hope he has some better explanation in regard to the customs. Is this or is this not a sound business proposition? If it is, why does not the Bank of England continue it? If it is not a sound business proposition, why are we taking it over from the Bank of England? I do not think that the hon. Member can have it both ways. To be told in one and the same breath that we have somehow to save Austria, as she will go absolutely down if she does not get this loan, and that, on the other hand, the loan is amply secured, seems to us to be inconsistent.
Our point of view on these benches is quite definite on the general question of what the Government's policy is. I do not agree with the very mid-Victorian Liberalism of the right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert). He does not believe that we should have anything at all to do with the Continent or with other countries. He is an unrepentant Free Trader and he believes in keeping money at home. We do not believe that you can divest yourself of the affairs of the Continent of Europe. On the other hand, what is the good of saying that you are putting up money to try to keep Austria on her feet in the interests of world stability and world trade, when you carry on a directly opposite policy at home and refuse every kind of assistance to help your own country and keep your people at home on their feet? There seems an absolute inconsistency in that. The whole thing seems to boil down to the fact, as has been stated, that the Treasury is in the hands of the Bank of England. The Bank of England have made a bad bargain and they have managed to persuade the Treasury to take over the bargain. Instead of agreeing to that, we should take over the Bank of England.

5.28 p.m.

Mr. BOOTHBY: I should like to remind the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that the Government have throughout this Bill treated this House, perhaps justifiably, with a certain amount of lofty disdain, as if the House really had no say in the matter, and as if the concurrence of the Treasury and the Bank of England were all that was required to make this guarantee a fait accompli. It is just as if the matter had simply to be ratified by this House with as little discussion as possible. I would remind the Government that the House is still supposed to be the custodian of the national finances and that, whatever commitments and obligations may have been entered into in the past, we ought not lightly and without very full Debate, to give a guarantee of this kind.
It would have been a catastrophe if this Bill had been allowed to go through without considerable discussion, and even protest, and I would not at all mind seeing that protest carried into the Division Lobbies. I was always very full of respect, amounting almost to reverence, for the Bank of England. That
respect and reverence have grown year by year since the War, and they have reached their apex at the present time; but I have always thought that there should be limits to the extent and the amount of influence which that remarkable institution should be permitted to exercise upon the general financial and foreign policy of this country.
There is, as my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary knows, or ought to know, and there has been for some time past, a great uneasiness, not only in this House but in the country, that the influence of the Bank of England, not only upon financial policy but upon foreign policy in this country, has become so great during the past few years as to be now a decisive factor in bringing, not only this Government, but Labour Governments, and, in fact, every Government that we have had since the War, to decisions and conclusions upon the most vital aspects of political as well as economic policy. There is also a feeling, which has increased of late, that, while the Bank of England has served this country very well, and is, as I have said, unique of its kind as an institution in the world, it has not in the past always proved to be right upon these major issues of policy, and I see no reason why the Bank of England, at least on these questions of policy, should be right as against the Government of the day. At any rate, whether that be the case or not, we cannot pass this Bill without a protest, and we ought not to pass it at all until we get a little more information than we have yet had from the Financial Secretary as to exactly how this loan came to be made.
My hon. Friend has not been quite frank with the House about that. He has not told us whether the Bank of England made this loan to the Creditan-stalt with the concurrence or approval of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day, and that is a vital point so far as this House is concerned. If it were a mere commercial loan made in the ordinary course of day-to-day business by the Bank of England, I do not think that this House has any right to implement this guarantee this afternoon; it is a matter solely for the responsibility of the Bank of England, which we are always being told is a purely private and independent institution. If, on the other hand, the loan was made with the approval, tacit or expressed, of the then
Chancellor of the Exchequer, or at any rate after the terms had been communicated to him, then the responsibility falls in a great measure, whatever my hon. Friend the acting Leader of the Opposition may say, upon the Government of which he was then so distinguished an ornament, and particularly upon Lord Snowden, who at that time was Chancellor of the Exchequer. If that be so, I think a strong case could be made out that this House is virtually under an obligation to implement the guarantee, and I hope that the Financial Secretary, when he comes to reply, will be quite explicit on this point, because it is a point of vital importance.
There is another question, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Paddington (Mr. Bracken), upon which I think we might have some reply from the Financial Secretary, and that is the question of interest. If this House, the Government and the British taxpayer are going to accept responsibility for the principal of this loan, are we to have no share at all in the interest, or is it to be paid entirely to the Bank of England? I think my hon. Friend said that, if that were the policy of the Government, the Bank of England would receive something in the neighbourhood of£400,000 by way of interest on this loan—

Sir WILLIAM LANE MITCHELL: For how long?

Mr. BOOTHBY: In all. Does my hon. Friend suggest that this House and the Government should guarantee the principal and receive none of the interest at all, but that all the interest should be paid to the Bank of England? I suggest that there is a strong case for the taxpayer sharing with the Bank of England in the profit on this transaction. However, I would ask the Financial Secretary to deal with that point also when he comes to reply. Another point that I wish to make is this—and here again it is really a matter for the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs rather than for the Financial Secretary. What is Austria actually going to get out of this loan? How much of it is going into repayment of existing debts, and, therefore, is not actually going to Austria at all? Is it a fact that the Austrian Chamber was only persuaded to accept this loan with the greatest difficulty—that it was only
passed by a margin of a single vote, or of two votes? Does Austria herself want this loan, or is it really, as some of us are beginning to think, a loan for the primary purpose of repaying existing creditors of Austria, of whom the Bank of England is one, and not directly for the benefit of Austria at all?
In the second place, how does my hon. Friend think that in the long run Austria is going to repay the whole of the principal of this loan? Does he really maintain that, because the loans of 1923 and 1930 were repaid by Austria, that is any genuine argument that she is going to be able to pay successive loans during the next decade, in her present financial and economic situation and condition? I do not believe for a moment that it is possible. The French Government have agreed to implement this guarantee, to come in with us in the granting of this loan, simply in order to prevent Austria from doing the one thing which might enable her to repay, namely, to form an economic union with some larger entity, probably Germany. It is a condition of this loan that the Anschluss shall not take place; but I do not believe that, without the Anschluss, Austria can ever revive from an economic point of view, or become a healthy or satisfactory economic entity. It is not possible.
The trouble dates right back to the Treaty of St. Germain. The present situation in Central Europe is impossible, both from the political and from the economic aspect. My hon. Friend knows that perfectly well. He can go on making loans; the Bank of England can go on making loans—as, indeed, it has done for the last 10 years—to Central Europe year by year; but you will never get a revival of prosperity in Europe so long as the present economic conditions and conditions as to frontiers and boundaries prevail. Where has all the money gone that has been sent to Central Europe during the last 10 years? Most of it has gone down the sink; we shall never see it again, nor can we while these conditions prevail. On the top of all this we find ourselves confronted—and I would ask my hon. Friend to reassure the House on this question—with a new cause of difficulty between His Majesty's Government and the Austrian Government, and a considerable deviation of opinion, on the question of the export of arms. Is my hon. Friend quite satisfied with re-
gard to the intentions of the Austrian Government in this matter? I am inclined to think that the wiser policy, not only for this country but for Europe as a whole, would be for us to keep out of Europe altogether from an economic point of view during the immediate future.
Lastly, I would like my hon. Friend to turn his eyes for a moment to the home problem, to the situation at home, where, according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we are to expect to see unprecedented unemployment for a period of 10 years to come. My hon. Friend said that there was a distinct probability of our not having to implement the guarantee that we are making in regard to Austria, but I would put this question to my hon. Friend. Does he really think that, if a great scheme for the construction of houses and for slum clearance were brought forward in this country today—such a scheme as has been carried out in Austria with our money during the last few years—the British municipalities would be more likely to default than the Austrian Government? Would the taxpayers of this country, in the opinion of my hon. Friend, be more likely to implement the guarantee of a loan for slum clearance and housing construction in this country than to guarantee this loan to Austria? I can only say that, if I were making a loan in a private capacity, I would very much rather float an internal loan for the purpose of developing housing construction in this country than I would an external loan to Austria.
I agree with the opinion, which has been expressed from all quarters of the House, that, at a moment when wages are being cut down, when the work of municipalities is being slowed up, when construction and development are being slowed up all over this country, it is really a wicked thing that the Government should come forward and ask the House to guarantee a loan of£4,500,000 to Austria. I would say to the Financial Secretary that he will have very much greater difficulty in getting through another Bill of this kind than he has had in the case of this one, although we all admit that his adroitness has been remarkable during the last few days. This foreign loan policy, at any rate for the time being, has got to stop so far as the Government are concerned.
We are assured by economists of every shade of opinion all over America and Europe, and by the Government themselves, that inter-governmental indebtedness is one of the most potent causes of the present world depression, and we all know that debts generally—Government debts, private debts and municipal debts —are the curse of the world at the present time. What is needed is to cut down indebtedness, not to create fresh debt obligations, but that is what the Government are doing at the present time.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. COCKS: I would like from this side of the House to express, as has been done from other quarters, admiration for the way in which the Financial Secretary has handled a very difficult position. I sympathise with him very much in the fact that, after all the intellectual sacrifices that he must have made in order to take office, he should still find himself in opposition to every speech that has been made here this afternoon. I want to say a word following on the speech of the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby). I am opposed to this Bill because of its effects upon Austria. We all sympathise with Austria and with Vienna. It has been said that one of the most tragic cities in Europe is Vienna, which was once the head of a mighty Empire, and inhabited by artistic and charming people. All its provinces have been torn from it, and its people have been left in a state of misery and bankruptcy. I am convinced, as I think the whole House is, that the only way in which Austria can attain economic stability is by entering into a customs union with some of her neighbours. For certain reasons it is impossible for her, at any rate at the present time, to enter into a customs union with what are called the Danubian States, and that is why her people have looked northwards to Germany, and have cherished an ambition to enter into a customs union with a country to which, after all, they are allied by many ties, both of race and of history. Under this Measure she will be prevented from doing this.
It has been stated that France would not have agreed to this loan unless a Clause had been embodied in the Agreement to the effect that Austria would abandon for a period of 20 years any idea of entering a customs union with
Germany. The Financial Secretary has said that this statement in the Bill makes no difference whatsoever—that it simply reiterates the governing Treaty of St. Germain. I do not entirely agree with that; it is rather a doubtful point. The Financial Secretary said that nothing is being added in substance or in time to the Treaty of St. Germain. That, however, is a rather dubious point, because, when the idea of a customs union between Germany and Austria was mooted a year or so ago, it came before the court of The Hague, and the court at The Hague certainly decided that that was inconsistent with the Treaty of St. Germain, but it only came to that decision by eight votes to seven; and among the seven judges on that tribunal who held the opposite view, that it would be quite consistent with the Treaty for Austria to enter into a customs union with Germany, were the representative of the British Government and the representative of the American Government. It is quite possible that, if another and slightly different scheme were drawn up on some future occasion, it might be admitted by the Court of The Hague as being consistent with the Treaty of St. Germain. If that be not so, what is the necessity for insisting upon this Clause in the Bill? If the Treaty of St. Germain is perfectly clear on this point, why should any Power insist upon reiterating it, in this Bill, for another 20 years? Moreover, the Clause which the Financial Secretary himself read out seems to involve some little addition of substance to the Treaty, because it runs like this:
The undertaking of Austria not to alienate her independence shall not prevent Austria from maintaining, subject to the treaty of St. Germain, her freedom in the matter of customs tariffs provided always that she shall not violate her economic independence by granting to any State a special régime or exclusive advantages calculated to threaten this independence.
It will be noted that in the first part of the Clause it had already been stated that Austria must not do anything against the Treaty of St. Germain. But it goes on to say she can have economic independence provided she does not enter into a special regime with another State. That seems to me an addition of substance to the original guarantee under the Treaty of St. Germain. But, even
if that were not so, I still say that, by putting in this limitation of 20 years, you have added in fact to the Treaty. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury said the Treaty of St. Germain lays down the position for all time. This Bill only lays it down for the next 20 years. This is one of the few cases where time is longer than eternity because it is absurd, when you are dealing with States and nations, to say they must not do something for all time. If you say they must, not do something for 20 years, there is a definite period which will have some validity but, if you lay it down that they shall never join another State or enter into a customs' union with another State, you are saying something that is meaningless, especially when one sees what the history of Europe has been in the past, or foresees the history of Europe in the future. The only Power that can say "never-more" to a State is the Deity, and certainly that Power was not behind the Treaty of St. Germain or any of the Treaties that concluded the War. Therefore, by putting this Clause into the Bill you are adding a new sanction to a series of treaties which are rapidly becoming obsolescent. You are saying that for 20 years Austria must keep strictly to one of those Treaties which we all know certain nations are even now preparing to abrogate, if necessary, by force.
I should like to echo what others have said against lending this money to the Bank of England. The hon. and gallant Gentleman behind me asked what was the position between the Bank of England and the Treasury. I think I can answer that on very high authority, perhaps the highest. The relation between the Bank of England and the Treasury is the relation between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. There seems to be no reason why we should give this present to Mr. Montagu Norman, who by his deflationary policy has added so much to our present distresses. Something has been said to-day about interest, and it has been asked who is going to get the interest. I do not think "interest" is quite the word that the hon. Member for North Paddington (Mr. Bracken) and the hon. Member for East Aberdeen have actually in mind. I understand that by being repaid in this way the Bank of England is going to make a very large profit owing to the different values of
gold. Both debts are gold debts. The Bank of England advanced the money, I understand, at a time when gold was at parity with the Austrian schilling and, owing to the fact that we are now off gold, on being repaid it will make a clear profit of perhaps£600,000. If that is the case, I think that the proposition of the hon. Members for North Paddington and East Aberdeen that the profit should go to the Treasury and not to the Bank is a very sound one. It is not the interest that is in question but a capital profit made by being repaid when we are off the gold standard a loan that was made when we were on it.
We were told last week by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there is no money for loans at all, and that it is not the policy of the Government to splash money about. Why should we splash it about Vienna if we are not allowed to splash it about London, Birmingham, Newcastle or places where work ought to be provided? If we are not allowed to raise a loan of£l,750,000 for the Humber Bridge, why should we raise this loan of£4,500,000 for the Bank of England under the pretence that it is for the use of Austria? I agree with the statements made outside the House that in such a crisis as the present the House of Commons should concentrate upon unemployment. It is the one thing that we are not allowed to discuss or, if we ask for a day, it is rather resented by the Government. For the Government to ask for this loan in present circumstances is an insult to the electorate and a flouting of the wishes of the people.

5.51 p.m.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: In a fairly long membership of the House I do not recollect under any Government a Measure which has been so pulverised by all parties and which has no friend in any quarter of the House, at any rate any quarter that is vocal. There has not been a single word said either on the Socialist, the Liberal or the Conservative benches in favour of the Measure at this or any stage. It only goes to show, as I said when the Bill was first introduced, that, if we pass it, we are throwing good money after bad. I think this view is shared by the Government. Not a Cabinet Minister has been present all the afternoon. They put up one of their most dextrous Under-Secretaries to
carry this very troublesome baby. In their heart of hearts they know that it is a most improper Bill from every point of view to bring before the House. I do not think I have ever been so cordially in agreement with the views expressed by Liberals and Socialists that the Bill should be refused a hearing unless the Government can give as an assurance that the Bank of England had some undertaking from the Government that, if they lent this money to the Austrian Bank, the Government would see them through or, at any rate, that the Bank of England were given to understand that it would be helpful to this country if they advanced this loan, as they did, at very high interest to Austria. Incidentally, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Paddington (Mr. Bracken) that, if we are to carry this baby for the Bank of England, we ought to have any profits or endowments which came with it in its early years. The State certainly ought to have any interest that has been paid to date.
Really, in these days the House of Commons and the country ought to be taken rather more into the confidence of the Government as to the exact position of the Bank of England in the national hierarchy. We were all brought up, in all classes of the community, to look upon the Bank of England as a wonderful institution rather beyond the ken of man, but I think it is about time there was some change, not in the Bank of England but in the government of the bank. They have certainly been guilty of great blunders in the advice they have given to succeeding Governments. We were pushed back on to the Gold Standard far too soon after the War and at present we are again buying millions of gold. The ordinary man-in-the-street does not quite understand where we are. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) said, if the Government are going to carry the baby of the Bank of England whenever they make a bad deal, we shall never get that change in the government of the Bank of England which I consider highly desirable in the interests of the country. [Interruption.] I hear Socialist cheers. I do not at all mean what they mean, that we should have the Bank of England governed by a Socialist Government of
the day who shall be able to put their fingers in the cake and pull out the plums for some of their Socialist nostrums. We want certain reforms within the Bank of England and we want a change in some of the governors of the Bank. It is high time the Bank of England stopped putting up its hands to shield itself from the camera of criticism, saying, "We are sacrosanct—you must not ask us any questions." This is a good opportunity for the Government to take the House of Commons and the country generally into their confidence as to their relations with the Bank on this matter and, unless the Bank had had some definite request from the Government when they advanced this money, I certainly think we should not agree to guarantee this loan. The National Government were returned, among other things, to rectify the adverse trade balance and, if we are going to give more loans of this kind to Continental countries, they can only pay the interest by sending us goods, which will have exactly the opposite effect to rectifying the adverse trade balance.
There is a further point raised by an earlier speaker about which I do not think the Government have been nearly frank enough. We are told this is a gold loan guaranteed by the Austrian Customs. The Austrian Customs are not on a gold basis, and we ought certainly to have information on that point. Whether we carry the Amendment or not, I hope the Government have had a lesson to stop tinkering with European finance. There has been quite enough of this. It is not even pretended that the Bill will do good to Austria. It certainly will not. I very much doubt if Austria will get any money at all. The sooner the Government stop attempting to bolster up European finance with these loans, the better it will be for this country and everyone concerned.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT: It has been said that no speech has been made in support of the Bill, and I am certainly not going to make any exception to the general rule, but I suggest, in spite of the badness of the Bill, that the House will be ill-advised to reject it at this stage. I am in entire agreement with almost all the criticisms which have been
levelled against it, including even the fantastical hyperbole of the hon. Member for North Paddington (Mr. Bracken). I would ask the House to remember two things, first of all, that this sum is only a guarantee and that there is a hope—not possibly a very big hope—that the money will not, in fact, have to be found from the Treasury of this country, and, secondly, to consider what the effect upon international feeling would be if the House of Commons, having passed the Second Reading of the Bill without a Division and accepted the principle of the Bill, and having failed to divide against any of the Amendments on the Committee stage, were, on the Third Reading, suddenly to turn it down. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore Brabazon) chid one of our hon. Friends for referring to the state of world finance in connection with the Third Reading of the Bill. With the greatest respect, although his Parliamentary experience is much longer than mine, I suggest that that reference was not so irrelevant as he seemed to think. At the present time anything which was likely to shake international confidence would be extremely dangerous.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: The criticism was that it should have been made on the Second Reading, and not on the Third Reading.

Mr. BEAUMONT: To throw out the Bill on the Third Reading would be a blow at international confidence which would be extremely dangerous. I hope that the Government will listen to the protests. I agree with the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), who said that the Bill should not be passed without a very strong protest. A very strong protest has been delivered. I hope that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will answer the questions which have been put to him and will give us some insight into the mystical union indicated by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wallasey. I hope, if the facing of the House of Commons with a loan of money to foreign Powers is a fait accompli as a result of that mystical union, that the Government will do something to alter the terms of that mystical union. The House does not like this kind of thing and will not stand it in the future. The time
to have rejected the Bill was on Second Reading, and to do so now would really, in the long run, do more harm than good.

6.4 p.m.

Mr. McGOVERN: I am rather glad to see the interest which has been taken in the Bill on the Third Reading, and I am rather sceptical at the moment as to the carrying of votes into the Division Lobby against the Bill. On the Motion for the Second Reading of the Bill my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and I called out very loudly against the passage of the Second Reading, but there was no response from any other hon. Member of the House. I am not anxious to criticise the Chair because Mr. Speaker felt justified in refusing to take a Division in the House as there was no body of opinion against the Bill.

Mr. BRACKEN: The hon. Member must have been intoxicated by the exuberance of his utterance if he did not notice that we took very strong exception to the Bill.

Mr. McGOVERN: No. It is all very well to suggest at this stage that hon. Members were against the Bill, because Lord Beaverbrook has given his orders since then and told the House of Commons that the Members ought to have challenged a Division in the Lobby. They are now being praised in the "Sunday Express" for their attitude last week and are attempting to justify their action now.

Mr. BRACKEN: The hon. Member suggested that I am one of what he calls Lord Beaverbrook's subsidised gentlemen. I am content to say that I have no financial connection with Lord Beaverbrook, and I hope he also has no connection with any foreign influence. I do not use the word "foreign" in an offensive sense, but only in regard to the independence of this House. There is no influence in this country which affects my vote, and the hon. Member ought to withdraw that statement.

Mr. McGOVERN: I understand that others besides the hon. Gentleman have spoken to-day. If he thinks that he is the only voice in this House he has become more intoxicated than I was when he suggested that I did not hear him on the last occasion. There are a
number of Members of the National Government who have stated in this House that they are going to challenge the right of the Government to grant this loan to indemnify the Bank of England. Why should they be against indemnifying the Bank of England? Are they so simple that at this stage they are trying to make us believe that the men who sit on the Front Bench are the people who decide the policy of the country? Has it not always been the Governors of the Bank of England, since it became a great financial house granting loans, national and international, who have dictated the policy of every successive Government in this House? If the Members of the House are trying to make the country believe that this is a departure of policy on the present occasion, they are attempting to make the public believe something which is not true. We have been told repeatedly—even by Members of the late Labour Government since they went out of office—that the Bank of England, at every turn, were dictating the policy, and were preventing them from carrying out their programme and the policy as endorsed by the electorate.
There is a growing volume of opinion in this House on the matter. As the oldest Liberal, the oldest Tory and the oldest Labour supporter are united against the loan, I have difficulty in deciding what to do to-night. I do not like the coalition of opinion of the three orthodox parties of the House. It seems to me that there is something seriously wrong when these people get together and. decide upon a common policy, because from what I have seen during the short time I have been in the House, when the oldest Liberal, the oldest Tory and the oldest Labour men agree, it means that they are all agreed upon a complete Tory policy, and are Tory in outlook in every shape and form. I do not profess to being an ardent constitutionalist. When hon. Members come to the House and say that the Bank of England want the country to carry the burden because there is a danger of a loss on the transaction, is not that exactly what is being done in commercial life right throughout—the ringing of the changes, the sleight-of-hand trick? Every person wants to evade anything which he thinks is to become a total loss to himself and wishes to pass it on to the
nation. If the Governors of the Bank of England are anxious to pass on the burden to the British taxpayers, it seems to me that they are becoming more and more convinced that the transaction is going to be a loss. It reminds me of the street bookmaker who came to a simple friend of mine and said that he had more money to pay out than he had drawn in. He lived on his winnings, and he said, "If you give me£25 I shall manage to carry on." The man to whom he appealed for the£25 had£5 3s. to come back, and therefore he thought that it was in his own interests to lend the£25 in order to get his£5 3s. All the other people who had money to come were all encouraging him to pay over the£25 in order that they could get their share. Naturally, if the Governors of the Bank of England see the danger of a loss they will be encouraging the taxpayers to step in and take on the obligation.
I would rather see this money spent by the British working class. If the money is to be given as a loan, I would rather see it given to the local authorities in order to put idle British workers into employment in the construction of houses, the laying-out of allotments or in other things which would be of permanent use and value to the working class of the country. When the Government can give£4,500,000 to Austria we may take it that the financial crisis in this country is not so acute as it was made out to be to the working classes. They have robbed, pillaged and practically murdered a large section of the working class by reductions in transitional benefit, in doles and in wages, and they have the effrontery to come to the House and say to the people, "We have stolen£7,000,000 or£8,000,000 from the unemployed, and we are proposing to give£4,500,000 to Austria in order to enable Austria to pay back interest and some other commitments on loans previously obtained Here is the difficulty in which I am placed in connection with this Bill. I and my hon. Friends cannot actually know what is going to happen in the future. This is the basis of my decision as to my opposition or support to-night. If I could be convinced that the withholding of the loan of£4,500,000 would help to precipitate crisis and re-
volution in Austria, I should be in favour of withholding the money in order to precipitate revolution and to ensure world revolt against the capitalist system and the banks of the various countries.

Mr. BRACKEN: Why do you not risk your own skin in Glasgow?

Mr. McGOVERN: I have always been prepared to risk my skin, and I have never asked other persons to risk their skin at my expense. Take that from me. You will not even risk a vote. You have left the House yourself after you have said that you were not going to support it. I like these courageous men. They are only courageous when they want to make a speech and get something off their chest, but when it comes to carrying out their intentions in the Lobby they are afraid to carry them to a conclusion. Of whatever else we can be accused, we cannot be accused of that sort of thing. Honestly, we in this House are always prepared to come down on the side which will bring about a further stage in the liberation of the common people from tyranny, autocracy, and the financial jugglers who are holding the country and the world in subjection at the present moment. We measure the amount of freedom gained by the working class in the completion of that cycle of revolt which is taking place throughout the world. Therefore, this is all that we have to decide. If there is a vote given in this House to-night against the granting of the money, I shall go into the Lobby with no other aim or Object in view but to encourage crises in the financial houses of the world, and to bring about a further stage in the liberation of the working class through world revolution.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: Many Conservative Members who have opposed the Bill have done so for reasons precisely the opposite of those advanced by the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern). Their case has been that if you go on lending money in this way the difficulties of the world will be increased, but that if you allow inter-Governmental debts to be cut out of the financial system capitalism will become more buoyant and will be restored. The hon. Member for Shettleston is in greater difficulty than the hon. Member for North Paddington (Mr. Bracken). The hon.
Member for Shettleston wants to be sure whether or not his vote will help to bring about a revolution in Austria, before he gives it. I would suggest to him with every respect and courtesy, that he should be a little more courteous in his references to hon. Members of this House. Many of us have taken part in these Debates, on the Second Reading and in Committee, and also this evening, because we are genuinely convinced that this is a very bad bit of business. I can understand the hon. Member's difficulty when he sees Liberals, Conservatives and Labour Members coming together and opposing a Measure. He suspects that there must be something wrong. For his own part he is unable to decide the matter upon the merits of the case, and he begins to cast aspersions. I do not think the hon. Member and his colleagues below the Gangway are fair to their colleagues in this House, or that they do their own case justice by the way in which they present it.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Are we to take lessons from you how to do it?

Mr. BEVAN: We have had lessons more than once from hon. Members below the Gangway. I can promise them that if they proceed in the way in which they have been going—

Mr. BUCHANAN: Get on with it. We are not depending upon instructions from you.

Mr. BEVAN: We shall never be able to adopt the smug, self-righteous attitude of the hon. Member.

Mr. BUCHANAN: If we had miners' money it would be another matter.

Mr. McGOVERN: Will the hon. Member tell me what I said that has aroused his indignation so much? He has done a little bit in lecturing hon. Members himself. He should be the last to talk.

Mr. BEVAN: I do not take the slightest exception to the hon. Member attacking other hon. Members on the merits of the case under discussion, but it really is becoming tiresome when we hear aspersions against the morality of hon. and right hon. Members. May I remind the hon. Member that he said that where Conservatives, Liberals and Socialists combined in this House, it is because they are combining on a Tory Measure.

Mr. McGOVERN: Am I not entitled to say that?

Mr. BEVAN: The hon. Member is not entitled to cast unjust aspersions at the same time. I should like to answer the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont), who has ventured some small defence of the Government. He suggested that we ought not to vote against this Measure this evening because we did not vote against it on Second Reading or in the Committee stage.

Mr. M. BEAUMONT: I did not suggest that it would be improper to do so, but that it would be unwise, because it would create a very bad impression outside.

Mr. BEVAN: The bad impression would have been created if we had voted against it on Second Reading or in Committee. The bad impression would not be an attribute of the Third Reading stage, but an attribute as a vote against the Bill.

Mr. BEAUMONT: That is not quite so. When you pass the Second Reading of a Bill the assumption is that you accept the principle underlying it. When you get to the Third Reading you are dealing with the Bill as it has arrived at that stage. Since we did not object to the principle on Second Reading, it would be an ill-judged procedure to object to the principle now.

Mr. BEVAN: Hon. Members have been attempting in the course of discussion to find out the facts behind the policy of the Government. We have attempted during the Second Reading and the Committee stages to learn from the Foreign Secretary and from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what actually led up to the present proposal. We have given the Government ample time, and we are voting against them on the Third Reading because we are satisfied that the case has not been made out in the House. It is true that the Financial Secretary has made several adroit speeches and has scored many debating points, but there are a number of questions which he has not answered, and I am sure that at this belated hour we are not going to have the answers for which we asked. He cannot give the answers, because by giving them he would disclose many unpleasant things behind this transaction. The second reason advanced by the hon. Member for
Aylesbury was very remarkable. It was that, perhaps, the money would not be required, that we might not lose the money. That is a suggestion that we should be enticed to go on to the ice. We say that the ice is thin and may let us down. The answer is that perhaps it will keep up. We suggest that we should not go on the ice, that we should not run the risk. There is no reason why we should run the risk of losing£4,500,000 for the purpose of backing up the Bank of England.
The hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) made an attack, which I deeply deplore, upon the Governor of the Bank of England. I do not see why the poor Governor should have to put up with all these attacks.

Sir W. DAVISON: I carefully avoided making an attack by name on any individual. I criticized the governors of the Bank of England.

Mr. BEVAN: It is extremely unfair that the Governor should be attacked. He is a perfectly good Governor. He is doing the job that any Governor would do if he were in a similar position. What is the position? The Foreign Secretary let the cat out of the bag. A large amount of money had been lent to Austria. Austria was in danger of defaulting. The Bank of England, closely associated with the City of London, closely associated with the people who had lent money to Austria, saw the difficulty, and they did what they have always done—they rushed to their friends in the city and said: "We cannot allow Austria to default, otherwise all the people who have been lending money to Austria will lose their money." Therefore, the Bank of England stepped in to support the credit of Austria for the purpose of supporting their friends in London. That is perfectly proper for the government of the Bank of England to do. They have always done it. They have only been international buccaneers. It is an indictment of the whole history of British international policy.
If Conservative Members want to indict anything they should indict the system which permits the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Foreign Secretary to commit this House to any international obligation before the House has had an
opportunity of discussing it. What has happened in this case? The Bank of England made this loan. We were informed by the Foreign Secretary, in Debate, that the Bank did it with the cognisance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Consequently, although the Bank was not acting as the instrument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, there was a gentlemen's understanding between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Bank of England that this money should be lent to Austria. Accompanying the lending of the money there were certain terms. Those terms, put euphemistically, were that Austria should not alienate her economic independence. In other words, she should not enjoy the same liberty that we ourselves exercise. We exercise the liberty of putting a tariff against some goods and not against others, but in the case of Austria this Bill prevents her from doing that. We say to Austria: "If you give a privilege to anybody you must give it to everybody. You must keep yourself in a position of financial and economic subserviance to your neighbours."
The alarming feature is that it is the Bank of England that attached that political condition to the loan, and now we are asked, at this hour of the day, to ratify an agreement entered into not on behalf of the Chancellor of the Exchequer hut with his cognisance. I suggest that if the House is going to allow this sort of thing, there will be a repetition of it in the near future. Are we going to allow the Prime Minister or any Executive to enter into an international obligation which we must ratify, because we have been committed to it beforehand? We have reached this stage in the British House of Commons that a great deal of business which involves the economic life of the country, and which involves international negotiations and agreements, is taken out of the hands of the House of Commons. Are we to assume that we cannot have a Debate beforehand and give instructions to the Government? If we do so, it would tie their hands in bargaining. They say that we cannot discuss matters beforehand because the rest of the world would then know our intentions. Therefore, the Government must be free to make arrangements behind our backs, which involve this House in financial commitments, in important agreements, and
months afterwards the Government come to us and say that they have done this tiling, and that we must ratify it. It means that the House of Commons have no control over the Government's international negotiations.
I seriously suggest that as this Bill is not a fundamentally important Measure, and as the effects of rejecting it will not be catastrophic, the House should turn it down in order to restore its control over finance, and to make it clear to the Government that the House of Commons is going to be the master of the Government's foreign policy as well as its domestic policy. Unless the House takes that line, the Prime Minister will take it for granted that no matter what may be the course of discussion in the House, as long as he commits us beforehand, he can always depend upon the House of Commons, in the most docile manner, ratifying the signature on any agreements at which he may have arrived. I would ask the Financial Secretary one question. If this money has already been loaned by the Bank of England to Austria, are there any economic merits in the loan, and in what way will Austria be disadvantaged if we refuse to ratify?
The Financial Secretary made the case that the money is necessary in order to restore the credit of Austria and put her financial life on a sound basis. I understand that this has already been accomplished. Therefore, will he say in what way any of these objects will be endangered if we refuse to ratify the Bill? I submit that the case that has to be met is not the need for a loan to Austria but the need for the Government of Great Britain finding the money for the Bank of England. That case has not yet been made out. It is the narrow issue which is now before the House. We cannot decide as to whether we are going to lend money to Austria—the money has been lent. We cannot decide whether the money has been properly used—it has been used. What the House is now asked to decide is not the merits of a loan to Austria but a Bill to indemnify the Bank of England against any losses which may be involved. That is the narrow issue to which I ask the Financial Secretary to address himself, and I hope that in the course of his reply he will face up to the question frankly.

6.31 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I doubt whether the House will be content if I confine myself to answering the question put to me by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan), upon the answer to which he said everything depended. But let me answer him at once. He asked in what way will Austria's position be disadvantaged if we refuse to ratify the Bill, because, he says, Austria has already received the money and out of the proceeds of the loan she will repay it; and, therefore, she will be in the same position as she was before. The question is susceptible of answer; and this is the answer. Austria borrowed money from the Bank of England on short term. She contracted to pay the Bank rate of interest, which has varied between 6 per cent, and 10 per cent. That short term obligation under this Bill will be converted into a long term obligation, at perhaps half the average rate of interest. To that extent Austria will appreciably benefit. I have answered that question first because many of the other questions which have been put during the Debate depend upon the answer to it.
I have been asked what is to become of the proceeds of the loan. We know that the Bank of England is to be repaid some of the money it has lent. Let me pause here to answer the hon. Member for North Paddington (Mr. Bracken) and the hon. Member for Aberdeen, East (Mr. Boothby), who evidently think that out of the proceeds of this loan interest is to be paid to the Bank of England. The Member for East Aberdeen made that point and put in a plea to persuade the Bank of England to forego the interest. It is not a question of interest at all. The Bank of England will be repaid a capital sum. If the hon. Member will look at the Protocol he will see that the advance of 100,000,000 schillings made by the Bank of England to the Austrian Government must be repaid out of the proceeds of the loan; that is a capital sum. The Bank of England lent 150,000,000 schillings to Austria; Austria has paid off 50,000,000 and there remains 100,000,000 schillings which will be repaid out of the proceeds of the loan.

Mr. BRACKEN: I am sorry to interrupt—

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The hon. Member interrupts me all the time. May I
complete this part of my statement? Annexe 1 of the Protocol also discloses the fact that the rest of the proceeds of the loan is to remain free, consequently, Austria will derive considerable advantage by acquiring a sum of money in exchange which represents the total sum to be guaranteed. Only the Bank of England is to be repaid under the Protocol, and it is to be repaid in consequence of an agreement made between the Bank of England and the Austrian Government without any intervention by His Majesty's Government. I wish to make that point perfectly plain. There was no Bill before the House of Commons, no proposal for a Bill, when the Bank of England lent the money. It was lent at a time when the Creditanstalt was in difficulties. His Majesty's Government were, of course, aware of that decision and were sympathetic towards Austria being lent money. Austria wished to borrow money on Treasury bonds in Paris and London, but was not successful. The Bank of England made the advance of its own motion, acquainting His Majesty's Government with their action, and their action received the full approval of His Majesty's Government.
The wisdom of His Majesty's Government in so approving is disclosed by the consequent history of events, for from the collapse of the Creditanstalt in Austria can be traced step by step the calamity which subsequently overcame this country in the autumn of 1931. That is a historical narrative which has never been disputed. You cannot isolate or insulate one nation from its neighbours and say that it is a matter of complete indifference what happens in an important metropolitan centre. I have answered the series of questions as to what is to happen to the proceeds of the loan and also the series of questions as to the independence of the Bank of England in this matter. I gather from the discussions that the Bank of England is not as popular as His Majesty's Government, but the Bank of England took a course of action which was in the best interests of the world, and a course which met with the approval of His Majesty's Government. What guarantee is there that the taxpayer of this country will be spared the necessity of having to meet any call? That is an important matter. Many
speeches have been based on the supposition that we are depriving the British worker of the wherewithal to undertake propositions like slum clearance in order to give it to Austria. The British taxpayer has not been called upon to meet any obligation yet in respect of the 1923 loan or the 1930 loan. Bondholders have received their interest up to date.

Mr. BOOTHBY: Why should they not be called upon to implement a matter like the Humber Bridge scheme any more than this one?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I do not quite follow the logic of the hon. Member. I say that, up to the present moment, the taxpayer has not been called upon to implement any past loan, either the loan made in 1923 or the loan made in 1930. What chance have we of escaping any liability under this loan? I gave certain figures showing that the loan was covered by customs and the tobacco monopoly at least 20 times. The hon. and gallant Member for Chippingham (Captain Cazalet), in what was one of the best informed speeches it is possible to make on this subject, suggested that there was perhaps some difference between taking a gold figure and an artificial parity figure. That is true, and if Austria were allowed to collapse and the Austrian schilling became worth less than it is to-day my figures would be entirely changed, but if the Austrian exchange is preserved, as we wish it to be, then my figures are absolutely true. I have taken a gold parity, and on a gold parity Austria is in a position to meet the interest 20 times over.
I have said that Austria's finances are to be put in order. I have been asked about the customs policy of the country. The hon. and gallant Member for Ardwick (Captain Fuller) was naturally interested in an increase in the tariff on certain cotton goods. He raised the matter on a previous occasion and I told him that His Majesty's Government would make representations to the Austrian Government if the facts were found to be correct. The Government have made representations to the Austrian Government and we have received their reply; to the effect that they desire to secure the fair treatment of British trade and they express the view that the new duties will not affect British imports specially because they
are on a type of yarn which Lancashire does not export as much as other countries. The reply is now being examined and I can assure the House that every step will be taken to secure fair treatment for British interests.
I have endeavoured to answer the questions that have been put to me. I can understand the deep feelings which have been expressed, but the type of criticism which suggest that we are giving certain advantages to Austria and withholding them from our own people is specious; and I can understand the effect it will have, particularly on untutored minds. We are not depriving the British people of anything. We have to have regard to our position internally and externally, for a great deal of the welfare and employment of this country depends on the continuance of our commerce. If Austria be allowed to default, and if other countries follow suit, it will have a grave effect on employment in this country. The argument also seems to suggest what is wholly without foundation, that we have not been generous to our own people. They have been guaranteed loans of many hundreds of thousands of pounds more than we are now guaranteeing to Austria. We wish Austria to be put on her legs, but that does not imply that we have no desire, in a manner with which no other country can compare, to fulfil our obligations to our own people.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. HARCOURT JOHNSTONE: I regret having to intervene at this hour in the Debate on a Bill which has been discussed by many hon. Members, several of them extremely well-informed on financial and City affairs. I do not propose to go into the question of the policy of the Bank of England. I only regret that a financial authority like the hon. Member for North Paddington (Mr. Bracken) finds himself at variance with the Bank of England. I regret, too, that much of the criticism of this Bill had been directed against the policy of the Bank of England as distinct from the policy of the Government. The policy of the Government is still obscure. I have listened to the Debates on this Bill on many days, three if not four, and I have still no real knowledge, nor has anyone in the House, of what actually occurred at the Treasury between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Governor or representatives of
the Bank of England, when the loan was originally made by the Bank of England. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has just said that at the time the loan was made no Bill was in contemplation— it "had not been thought of" were his exact words. I find it difficult to reconcile the policy of this country, the statement that the lending of fresh money to Austria had not been thought of, with the statement made by the Financial Secretary on 7th February, when he said:
The Bank of England made it a term of this advance that it should be repaid in full out of the proceeds of the first national loan that was floated by Austria which was then considered a proximate possibility. So proximate was it considered that the Bank of England only advanced the money on weekly terms."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th February, 1933; col. 133, Vol. 274.]

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I said the same to-day.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: Precisely. Then why say that at the time the Bank of England made the loan no Bill had been thought of or was contemplated?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I said in my opening speech and said again just now that the Austrian Government tried to raise this money on the market, in Paris and London. They were not successful. You do not have a Bill for that, but you do happen to have a Bill for a guaranteed loan. At first there was no question of a guaranteed loan, because it was thought that Austria would be able to raise the money otherwise.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: What was the "proximate possibility"?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: That Austria would be able to raise the money on the market.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: Without any guarantee?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Certainly.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: Considering the state of Austrian finances, it is a curious thing that the Government should now say that at the time it was considered a "proximate possibility," in fact almost a certainty, that the Government of Austria would be able to raise the money in the market, seeing that months and months of negotiations with a series of Governments have since been necessary to
obtain the money. I really cannot help drawing the conclusion, which I think other Members have drawn, that fundamentally there was a connection between this loan made by the Bank of England and the policy of the Government at that time. It was very much the intention of the Treasury, should Austria find itself unable to repay the capital of this loan advanced on short term, to come to this House for permission to advance the money to Austria, which in turn would repay it to the Bank of England. If that was the case I see no reason why the Government should be ashamed of it. It is true that it would be an infringement to a large extent of the power of this House over finance, but there are occasions of great crisis when it is necessary, perhaps, to go behind the back of the House and to act quickly. But it creates no good impression in the mind of the House of Commons if the Government commit the crime and then are not frank about it.
A further point I would like to get cleared up finally is the question of the Government's policy with regard to Austrian trade agreements. We had a long statement from the Financial Secretary on the last occasion on which this Bill was debated, and he then affirmed, and in answer to repeated questions reaffirmed several times, that the Protocol connected with this Bill only in fact repeats the actual terms of the Treaty of St. Germain. I am not convinced that that is the case. The Treaty of St. Germain forbids Austria to alienate her independence. The Protocol for the first loan not only reaffirms that, but prevents Austria from raising the question before the League of Nations until a term of years have passed. The Protocol of this Bill appears to me to extend that prohibition for a further 10 years. It is not the continuance of the affirmation of the terms of the Treaty of St. Germain to which one can object. The Treaty exists, and it is, of course, of its own nature perpetual, but when you introduce into a Protocol new matter which is designed to prevent Austria from raising the question before a certain term of years has passed, you are going beyond the Treaty and making this country a party to a policy which we know is held by the French and Italian Governments, but which I most
sincerely hope is not held by the British Government.
I am sure that the Financial Secretary is entirely sincere when he makes, as he has made, numerous statements as to the importance of Austria in the economic structure of Europe, when he says that it is vitally important that Austria should not be allowed to collapse, as we are all members of one another, and so forth. But it is even more important that the Government should take a long view of this question. A loan such as this has a certain importance. It may help Austria temporarily, but the only thing that can help Austria permanently is a reorientation of her political position. That is infinitely mixed up with her financial and economic position—more intimately than that of any other country. Limitations based upon Austrian sovereignty by the Treaty of St. Germain affect her economic life more vitally than the conditions of any of the post-War Treaties affect the economic life of any of the countries.
I hope to hear, not on this occasion but on some future occasion, that it is not the policy of His Majesty's Government to stabilise permanently or for an increasing term of years, whichever it may be, a political condition which is having the most disastrous economic effect upon Central Europe, and will only force this country, this Government perhaps, to come again to this House for further money to get Austria out of the economic morass in which she is confined by the terms of that Treaty. The explanation which the House would like to hear is one for the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to make. I regret very much that he has not been here to make it. I am certain that the whole House, irrespective of party, would have welcomed from him a general indication of the policy of the Government with regard to Austria. I hope there will be an occasion given in the near future when this question may be debated in the House. I very deeply regret that this Bill does seem, apart from all the defects attributed to it by the hon. Member for North Paddington and the hon. Member for Eastern Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), to show that the Government are content with the political situation of Austria, and are content, with France and Italy, to force that
position upon her for ever. If that is not the case I hope we may have some contrary indication from the Government in the near future.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 227; Noes, 51.

Division No. 48.]
AYES.
[6.56 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
O'Connor, Terence James


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Grimston, R. V.
O'Donovan, Dr. William James


Albery, Irving James
Guinness. Thomas L. E. B.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. I M. S.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Patrick, Colin M.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Hales, Harold K.
Percy, Lord Eustace


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Petherick, M.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Hanbury, Cecil
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)


Atholl, Duchess of
Hanley, Dennis A.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Atkinson, Cyril
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Power, Sir John Cecil


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Pybus, Percy John


Balfour, George (Hempstead)
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Balniel, Lord
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Henderson, sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford!
Rea, Walter Russell


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th.C.)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Hopkinson, Austin
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Bernays, Robert
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Ropner, Colonel L.


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Hornby, Frank
Rosbotham, Sir Samuel


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Rothschild, James A. de


Blindell, James
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Runge, Norah Cecil


Borodale, Viscount.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Boulton, W. W.
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Boyce, H. Leslie Brass, Captain Sir William
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Brass, Captain Sir William
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Broadbent, Colonel John
Inskip, Rt. Hon. sir Thomas W. H.
Savery, Samuel Servington


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Selley, Harry R.


Buchan, John
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Ker, J. Campbell
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Burghley, Lord
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Burnett, John George
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Knight, Holford
Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Unv., Belfast)


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Slater, John


Carver, Major William H.
Levy, Thomas
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Castle Stewart, Earl
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Smithers, Waldron


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Locker-Lampion, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. Gr'n)
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Clarke, Frank
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Soper, Richard 


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Cook, Thomas A.
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Cooke, Douglas
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Cooper, A. Duff
McCorquodale, M. S.
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
McKie, John Hamilton
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Maitland, Adam
Sutcliffe, Harold


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Dormer, P. W.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Duggan, Hubert John
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Eastwood, John Francis
Martin, Thomas B.
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Turton, Robert Hugh


Elmley, Viscount
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Mitcheson, G. G.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Fox, Sir Gifford
Moreing, Adrian C.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Morrison, William Shepherd
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Glossop, C. W. H.
Munro, Patrick
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Nunn, William
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Womersley, Walter James
Worthington, Dr. John V.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)
Sir George Penny and Major George Davies.


Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)




NOES.


Ainsworth, Lieut-Colonel Charles
Fuller, Captain A. G.
McGovern, John


Attlee, Clement Richard
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Carn'v'n)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Banfield, John William
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Maxton, James


Batey, Joseph
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Milner, Major James


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Parkinson, John Alien


Bracken, Brendan
Groves, Thomas E.
Price, Gabriel


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Remer, John R.


Buchanan, George
Hicks, Ernest George
Robinson, John Roland


Clarry, Reginald George
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Thorne, William James


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Tinker, John Joseph


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Daggar, George
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lunn, William
Withers, Sir John James


Davison, Sir William Henry
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)



Edwards, Charles
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Mr. Boothby and Mr. Charles Williams.


Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1932.

CLASS III.

MISCELLANEOUS LEGAL EXPENSES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding£6,500, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933, for certain Miscellaneous Legal Expenses, for the Salaries and Expenses of Arbitrators, etc., under the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, and for a Grant-in-Aid of the Expenses of the Law Society.

7.6 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The Committee will see that the additional£6,500 is required for the expenses incurred in arresting criminals in foreign countries. This unexpected increase in a Vote which, from its very nature is difficult to estimate, is due to the Broad Street Press prosecution. It was necessary to start extradition proceedings. In the case of two of the defendants these proceedings have terminated successfully. The third case is still proceeding. Under our Treaty with the United States, all the expenses connected with extradition are borne by the State demanding extradition. A person can only be delivered up on such evidence as can justify his
extradition and commitment for trial according to the law of the country in which he is found. I am sure the Committee will have no complaint that we pursued these two men.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what is the position regarding Mr. Jacob Factor at the moment? The proceedings have been going on for nearly two years in America, and there seems to be unlimited possibility of delay, and of expenditure of English money in order to try to recover Mr. Factor who has already had a great deal of English money. Can he tell us what are the prospects of Mr. Factor returning shortly?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The proceedings, as my hon. and learned Friend has stated, have been of long duration. There has been a decision in the Federal Court in our favour. It is now subject to appeal, I understand, to the Supreme Court. I cannot tell how long it will be before the final decision is given.

CLASS I.

PRIVY COUNCIL OFFICE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum not exceeding£660, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The Committee will see that, whereas the Estimate was
£6,000 in the current year for the Judicial Office of the Privy Council, we have received a less sum, which obliges us to come to the House and ask for this£660. Business, as the Committee is aware, has been bad and has reflected itself in litigation, with the result that our Appropriation-in-Aid has not been as great as otherwise it would have been.

CLASS III.

LAW CHARGES AND COURTS OF LAW, SCOTLAND.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding£7,500, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Lord Advocate's Department, and other Law Charges, the Salaries and Expenses of the Courts of Law and Justice, and of Pensions Appeals Tribunals in Scotland, and Bonus on certain Statutory Salaries.

7.12 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: This is an increase in expenditure of£7,500 in regard to criminal prosecutions in Scotland. The extra expenditure arises from the Scottish Amalgamated Silks case. The trial lasted 33 days and resulted in the conviction of two of the accused, and two appeals to the Court of Criminal Appeal. The appeals lasted 10 days. I believe that this was one of the largest pieces of litigation of the kind in Scotland. The expenses have been extremely great. On that account there is this Supplementary Estimate. I hope the course of action taken by the legal authorities, and the result of the trial, has justified this additional expenditure.

7.13 p.m.

Mr. McGOVERN: I desire to raise the question of this Amalgamated Silks trial. I have given notice of my intention to do so to the Solicitor-General, as I understand the Supplementary Estimate is for an additional sum to cover the cost of this trial. In this case 11 persons were arrested in 1931 for forming companies to defraud investors of£802,081. When these 11 persons were arrested, I think I would be safe in saying that the business world was rather startled at the amount of money involved in connection with these alleged frauds. Many of the people concerned came from well-known families
in Scotland and had been connected with the commercial life of Scotland for a very considerable period. They were people of substance and wealth. After these persons had been arrested we were told that the crime was so serious that it would not permit, at the outset, of any question of bail being granted.
One of the circumstances which arose in connection with this case was that Mr. John Gardiner, on the production of a medical certificate, was discharged. It is alleged, by people who have a fairly good knowledge of this case, that prominent Members of this House did a considerable amount of interviewing, and were appealing in connection with Mr. Gardiner when he was released. He is the man who formed a very questionable gas undertaking, in which the Glasgow Corporation had assisted. He is a man of 57 years of age and, to my knowledge, of fairly decent health. I want to know if the Solicitor-General can tell us anything concerning the discharge of Mr. Gardiner. Two other persons were also discharged and the Lord Advocate in a previous statement said that the charges against these two were dropped in order to bring the trial "within manageable dimensions." It seems rather peculiar that men accused of fraud or complicity in fraud should be released for no other reason than to keep the trial "within manageable dimensions." There is no statement that they were not associated with the others concerned in the alleged criminal charges. Then a number of individuals were released on bail—some of£1,000 and various sums like that—and they must have found the money fairly easily.
The accused were sent for trial and one man was discharged from the dock—again on the production of a medical certificate. It seems to me that the judicial regime in Scotland at the moment is pursuing a policy of recognising the production of medical certificates in cases of people of substance and wealth and that such people are being discharged fairly readily on the production of certificates of ill health. Seven of the accused were left and of the seven, two were convicted and sentenced—Alexander Young to three years, and George Todd to six months. These men naturally appealed. I should have said that the man who was discharged from the dock was a member of
the Coates family, a family who have left more millions in Scotland than I care to think of. An appeal, as I say, was lodged by Mr. Young and Mr. Todd— men who had been found guilty of association with a crime involving£802,000— and they were granted bail of£10 on application to the High Court. Yet we had the refusal of the Lord Advocate to release these men on bail at the outset because the crime was so serious. In this case I made the allegation previously and I have never heard any proper answer to it, that the judge took the pressmen into a private room—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to criticise the judge he must put down a substantive Motion in the House. He cannot do so on the Estimate.

Mr. McGOVERN: I am going to criticise not the judge, but the Lord Advocate, and I want to show what happened in this connection in order to bring out my point. They asked that the pressmen should not state the amount of bail in this case—a case that had caused a certain amount of anxiety throughout Scotland and had been given a great deal of publicity. It was only after questioning the Lord Advocate in this House that we managed to elicit the fact that these men had been granted£10 bail. In my submission the Lord Advocate in such a serious case ought to have opposed such meagre bail. The Lord Advocate said that these men were penniless—these men who, among them, could raise thousands in the initial stages of the trial and who had many wealthy friends. They were penniless it was said, and that was the reason why they were allowed£10 bail. The result of the appeal was that one of these individuals was discharged and Todd, I think—I am open to correction— got six months.
That was the result of the great trial involving about a dozen people. It was watered down by the production of medical certificates and in various ways and in the end we get one man convicted and sentenced to six months' imprisonment. As to the cost of the trial, in reply to a question which I asked on 1st November, 1932, I was told that the estimated cost was£22,500. I do not know whether that is the complete cost
or not. At any rate, the legal people seem to be the only people in the country who have got any satisfaction out of the trial. It was like a good race meeting for the bookmakers, was that silks trial at Edinburgh, in its effects on the legal fraternity. Probably we ought not to grumble because business was very dull in the legal world at that time and they had to get briefs from some quarter. There were two men discharged— Coates and Gardiner. The Lord Advocate stated that they could be brought up again at a future time if the Crown so decided. Now Coates and Gardiner were people of substance who have been involved in companies with millions of capital. I want to know now, have the Crown dropped all intention of bringing these people to trial, or was the production of the medical certificates similar to the case of shoplifting last week, and simply an excuse for allowing these people to get out of their obligations and not to stand for their trial?
I am bound to assume that in the case of people who are associated with a crime of this description. I know what happens in ordinary working-class life. If a person is not able to attend through illness at the rent court, when there is a case against him, he is brought up again the following week and has to stand his trial. I want to know if the production of medical certificates is part and parcel of the policy which is being pursued by the Lord Advocate and the Scottish Office in order to allow people of substance to evade their responsibilities. The history of this trial from beginning to end has been of a most suspicious nature. The number of defendants has been watered down, like the 10 little nigger boys, until only one is left. They all seem to have got through the sieve prepared by the Lord Advocate and the Scottish Office. The consideration that has been given to these company promoters has been rather interesting, and it is having a very bad effect outside. The law ought to be classless. It ought to operate against rich and poor with an even balance. Hon. Members are not to take it because there is not an expression from a large number of people in this Committee, that public opinion outside has not been rather suspicious in connection with this trial. I,
myself, have come across a considerable number of people who thought that the way in which this trial was handled from beginning to end was a public scandal. Either there was no case against these men, in which case they ought never to have been brought to trial, or else the trial was so badly handled that they managed to evade the charges against them.
The production of the medical certificates; the secrecy as to the amount of bail; the individuals who managed to escape the net of the law—all has contributed to the general suspicion that everything has not been well in connection with this case. I do not want to go on hammering at this question unnecessarily. I simply raise the question because I raised it previously. I think we are entitled to a better explanation than that which we received from the Lord Advocate previously. The Lord Advocate simply came down here with anger and a certain amount of malice, if I may be permitted to say so, against the Members who raised the matter as if they had no right at all to do so. We are entitled to raise a matter of this description and I would like to know what explanation the Solicitor-General has to give of the release of Gardiner and the discharge of Coates; whether these medical certificates will absolve them for all time from standing trial and whether the two men who were discharged in order to keep the case "within reasonable dimensions," are to be permitted to evade their responsibilities and are not entitled to stand their trial? As far as the expenditure of public money is concerned, there has been wasteful expenditure on a trial that has not in any way given confidence to the outside public who are watching the operation of the law. I ask the Solicitor-General to give us his explanation of the happenings in connection with the trial.

7.26 p.m.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. Normand): It is a matter of great regret to me that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate is prevented by illness from being here to-day to reply to the attack which has been made upon him, and which he could have repelled, I am certain, with far more force than I am capable of in replying to it. I have considerable difficulty in answering some of
the details which have been raised by the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) because it so happens that when these proceedings were first instituted I was counsel for one of the accused. Accordingly, when I was appointed to the office which I at present hold it would have been improper for me to have acted for the Crown as I had already been in confidential relationship professionally with one of those who was being prosecuted. Therefore, I have no intimate personal knowledge of the case such as I should have had in ordinary circumstances.
I am at a loss however to understand what precisely is the charge which is being made. Is it that this prosecution has been undertaken, and money spent upon it, when no prosecution at all ought to have been undertaken, or is it that some people have not been prosecuted who ought to have been prosecuted? The suggestion was made that there had been some differentiation in favour of those who were well-to-do and that others who were less well-off had been placed on trial. For that suggestion there is no shadow of reasonable ground whatever. The name of Mr. Coates was mentioned as one of those who had been allowed to slip through the net. The hon. Member for Shettleston knows as well as I do that two brothers of that family were charged; that both were put upon their trial; that one of them was taken ill during the trial; that it was necessary to continue the trial in his absence through illness; that his brother remained charged and was submitted to the verdict of the jury who found the case against him "not proven." As regards the member of the family who took ill the Lord Advocate did not desert permanently the case against him, but only deserted it for the time being until the upshot of the trial could be seen.
If the hon. Member suggests that the member of the family whom he has named should now be put on trial, after his brother, who was in exactly the same position, has been found not guilty—if the hon. Member resorted to a suggestion of that sort, I am sure that nobody could be much impressed by his criticism. Another point raised by the hon. Member was that the Lord Advocate had not proceeded against every one of those originally charged. It is true, I think—I
have not got exact knowledge of the numbers—that originally some 11 persons were charged, and the trial proceeded actively against eight. Is it suggested that those three persons were not prosecuted because they were better off than those who were? The question will not bear a minute's examination. Those three persons were let off from prosecution on perfectly good grounds that satisfied the Lord Advocate. In the first place, I believe that one of them was very gravely ill, and I believe that if it had been necessary to wait for his recovery, the trial might have been quite indefinitely postponed and might never have taken place at all.
As regards the others, in every such case the prosecutor necessarily has to exercise discretion about whom he is to bring to trial. He has to consider the evidence which the preliminary investigation has disclosed, and he has to make up his mind who are the persons who are pointed at as guilty by the evidence at his disposal; and it would be impossible for one to conduct the criminal administration of the law in Scotland if it were to be supposed that everybody originally charged must be brought to trial. In this particular instance those were brought to trial whom the Lord Advocate considered were those who were most pointed at by the evidence. The result was that two of them were convicted, and as regards the remaining six, the jury found the case not proven. There has never been any suggestion that any of those who were not brought to trial were in any worse position at all events than those whom the jury found not proven guilty of the offences charged.
The last point made by the hon. Member has even less substance in it than those with which I have already dealt. He said that originally bail was fixed at a large sum of money, and I believe that to have been the case, but that after conviction bail was fixed at a comparatively trifling sum in the case of the two men who were liberated pending their appeal. That is perfectly true, but, in the first place, bail after conviction is not a matter for the Lord Advocate at all, but for the court. The court fixes the bail. In the second place, these two men were men whose entire money had
been spent in the conduct of their defence, and they had no more money with which to find bail at the time when they were convicted. But what is most important of all is this: The purpose of bail is to secure the men's presence when the appeal is called in court. There are, of course, other means open to the Lord Advocate than the mere finding of bail to secure that result, but the point is that the men turned up, and, therefore, there can be no question at all as to whether the bail was or was not adequate. The fact is that the purpose for which bail exists was fulfilled. The men were there when the appeal was called, and they answered their names; and they now have either undergone or are undergoing sentence. There can, therefore, be no reasonable complaint against the Lord Advocate in connection with the matter of bail.

Mr. McGOVERN: The point in connection with bail is this: You do not suggest that the Lord Advocate or his representative was not present at the fixing of bail. I claim that the Lord Advocate was a party to the suppression of the amount of bail, and that he was there when the Press were invited not to publish it.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL for SCOTLAND: I am certain that neither the Lord Advocate nor any judge had anything whatever to do with any efforts to suppress the amount of bail. In conclusion, I wish to repudiate, in the most emphatic terms, the suggestion that the administration of justice in Scotland is open to suspicion by any reasonable man or the assumption that a man who is well off will receive more favourable treatment than anybody else.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I am glad to see the Solicitor-General for Scotland taking part in this Debate, for one thing alone, and that is that it has brought out from him a fire and a heat which I have never witnessed before from him in his public life. He was very much annoyed with my hon. Friend the Member for Shettle-ston (Mr. McGovern) because he dared to suggest that the Lord Advocate's Department in Scotland is not as it should be. I do not know how far the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree with me, but he may be worse with me
than he was with the hon. Member for Shettleston, because I want to say, quite frankly, that I believe sincerely that the Lord Advocate's Department, presided over by the present Lord Advocate in Scotland is, I am certain—and I want to repeat this—corrupt at the present time. I am certain that the Lord Advocate's Department presided over by the man in charge at the moment is corrupt. I am not going to proceed with it, because he is absent, but as soon as he comes back I will be prepared to face him in this House of Commons and to say that his Department is corrupt, and that he himself is not capable of conducting his Department in a way that any business man would allow his department to be conducted.
Let us be quite frank about this. Men come down to this House of Commons and lay down laws for the unemployed—I do not object—they lay down strict measures, they lay down the enforcement of law and decree, and they state that certain things are to be done, and if those things are not done, people are dealt with in a very severe fashion. Presiding over that office to-day—everyone in this House knows it—[An HON. MEMBER: "What has this to do with it?"] If it was the hon. Member's money that was being spent, if he was running a business, he would not tolerate the conduct of the Lord Advocate for 10 minutes. I say this to this House of Commons, that I have as much right to be careful in my spending of public money as I have to be in the spending of my own, and I have no right to see public money spent when I know that in my own business I would not tolerate such conduct. It is no use the Lord Advocate getting vindictive, nor the Solicitor-General for Scotland, because every decent man in this House must be indignant about the Department.
Take the facts of the case. This case was originally begun with the arrest of 11 persons. When last I tackled the Lord Advocate on it, his defence was that he had undertaken this task, that it was difficult, and that if it were under taken properly, it would result, so far as the business world of the City of Glasgow and the rest of Scotland was concerned, in at least its cleanness being safeguarded in the future. If that was the theory behind this prosecution, then I am afraid they have lost. Let us face
the facts, and never mind any heat. Eleven men were arrested and charged on indictment, and three of them were liberated; and, mark this, one was liberated on the ground of ill-health— John Gardiner. It is said by the Solicitor-General for Scotland that if he had not been liberated, it might have delayed the trial. That is a solicitude for the rich that is never shown for the poor. As a matter of fact, it was known in the City of Glasgow at the time when the trial was going on that he was not ill.
What was the evidence taken for sickness? A doctor's certificate. If I go to the Employment Exchange, as I frequently do, what have I to do? A doctor who gives evidence has to go before the Court of Referees and be examined. Here the doctor's lines are put in. No doctor is examined on oath; no doctor is brought to the court and asked to swear a solemn oath to his statement. No, the line goes in, and no man is examined in the box as to its correctness or otherwise. It is sent to the Lord Advocate, that earnest, sincere, deep thinker, and he is the sole custodian, not the Solicitor-General for Scotland. If it were the Solicitor-General, I would trust it more, because, whatever the Solicitor-General may have in the way of faults, I do not know any that he has got. I only know that in his politics he has been clean. That is not to be said for the other man, and everybody in this House—why be mealy-mouthed about it?—knows it. If a man can conduct his political affairs as that Lord Advocate has done, you cannot entrust him with a question of justice and public prosecution.
I will wait till he comes back and say the things; and everyone in this House knows them, and knows that with his own private money he would not tolerate them. Every Scottish Member knows it. Why is there not a single King's Counsel present to-day? There has never been a time when there were so many Conservative barristers and King's Counsel in this House as there are at the present time, yet there is not one of them present now. I know what the reason is, and everybody in this House knows. It is that they are decent fellows and do not want to interfere with their political future at the Bar, but they do not want to be involved in anything that
may be wrong, so, being decent fellows, they stay away. That is the reason.
These three men get off, one of them without any evidence at all, except the so-called medical evidence. It is said that he was in a nursing home in Edinburgh. I do not deny it, nor do I deny that he was under medical attention. There is a High Court sitting at Glasgow to-morrow. I do not know whether it will be different from the other High Court, but I expect that it will be the same. I have watched men stand their trial—miserable, underfed men. I have watched a man being tried who, I am certain, had not had a decent meal of meat for years. He was charged with an offence against the other sex. Everything about the man showed that he needed a doctor, but he had to stand his trial. Gardiner was more fit to stand his trial than that man was, and everybody in Scotland knows it. Gardiner was implicated in a gas contract in the city of Glasgow, and the corporation were involved in it. Everybody knows the history at the background of it. The Order Paper frequently contains questions about a man getting his unemployment benefit, and Members want to inquire to the last detail. When a rich man is involved he is discharged and there is indignation if you say a word about it in the House of Commons.

Dr. HUNTER: Does the hon. Member accuse the doctor of giving a false certificate?

Mr. BUCHANAN: No, but I say that he should go into the witness box and be examined.

Dr. HUNTER: A doctor gives a certificate on his soul and conscience, and he stakes his reputation on it.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Even if he does that, he has his duties as a citizen and he should be examined on his medical evidence. When a doctor under National Health Insurance gives his certificate that a man is sick, he does it upon his soul and conscience, but it is not taken as final and the man has to go to the regional doctor. The bail in this case was fixed at a certain amount. The Solicitor-General knows that before the fixing of bail, the authorities are consulted. I am not criticising the judge who fixed the bail. A judge has to be sure of certain things which he cannot
get to know except by consultation with the prosecution. He has to be sure that it is reasonable to believe that a man will stand in the dock when he is called and that the ends of justice will not be tampered with by the accused. How is a judge to know that unless he consults the prosecution? The fact of the matter was that the bail in this case was accepted by the Lord Advocate and agreed to by him. No opposition was taken to it. The thing that makes every one of us wonder is this. Here was a public question in which everybody was interested, and yet the Press never stated the amount of the bail. Wealthy men were standing their trial; certain of them were convicted and bailed. This bail was fixed, and not a single newspaper in Scotland published the terms of the bail. The reason was that the Press were asked not to publish the details.
I am not against the fixing of the sum of£10, for I agree with low bail as humane justice. The hon. Member for Shettleston stood his trial. Whatever may be said about him he is a Member of Parliament and has a public position. On the case that was against him, the maximum sentence was three months. He was not accused of a crime in a sense that stealing is a crime; it was for leading a riotous mob. What was his bail? It was£25, and they originally asked for£100. I know the case of a girl of 14 who had never been in trouble before, and her bail was£10. If the case about which I am speaking were an isolated case, one would not be so annoyed, but it is running through the whole sphere of Scottish justice. Everywhere there is a feeling that class justice is being meted out in Scotland. I came across a case the other week of a man who was knocked down in Charing Cross, Glasgow, by a man who was drunk when in charge of a motor car. The man was seriously injured and the driver, who pleaded guilty, was fined£25. That is the case of a rich man. On the same day a poor man, for "doing" the parish council, was given six months' imprisonment.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now going outside the terms of the Estimate. The general administration of justice in Scotland, if it can be raised in Committee of Supply at all, should be raised on the main Estimates.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I was only showing the feeling that is running throughout Scotland at the moment. This is not an isolated case, and the conduct of this case did not redound to the credit of the Lord Advocate.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): May I intervene to say here and now that, in my view, it is most unfortunate that these attacks upon the professional conduct of the Lord Advocate should be made in his absence through illness? I do not propose to reply to them, but I wish most emphatically to register my protest.

Mr. MAXTON: I would remind my hon. Friend that we are not responsible for bringing this Estimate before the Committee to-day. It has been well known to the Scottish Law Officers that on the appropriate occasion we proposed to deal with this matter, and, if the Government deliberately bring forward an Estimate affecting one of their Ministers when they know that he cannot be present, they can have no grievance against us.

Mr. SKELTON: May I point out, what the Committee is well aware of, that this Supplementary Estimate, like others, must be passed before March? I should like to repudiate the suggestion of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) that this Estimate was intentionally put down because it was known that for health reasons the Lord Advocate would be absent. I merely repeat my protest against the observations and language which the hon. Member, when he sees them in cold print, will agree are of the most severe kind to be made against an absent Member.

Mr. BUCHANAN: All this indignation leaves me cold and tempts me to say more. Everybody who sits on the Government Bench knows that what I say is true. Everybody who sits on the Opposition Bench and on other benches knows it.

Mr. SKELTON: I speak for all Members on this Bench when I say that nobody would seek to limit the activity and violence of the hon. Gentleman. I have made my protest, and I do not intend to repeat it. It stands for the rest of the speech.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: I and my colleagues would not be afraid of any-
thing the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) might say about us on these benches.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I was saying nothing about—

Mr. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. The hon. Member's statement was—

Mr. BUCHANAN: May I ask what the point of Order is?

Mr. MACLEAN: I am stating the point of Order. The statement made by the hon. Member was that Members on the Government Front Bench knew that he was not afraid to speak out his mind with regard to Members on that Bench and to Members on this Bench.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I said nothing of the kind. You are quite wrong; you were not listening.

Mr. MACLEAN: What I am quoting is in the memory of the Committee—that the Members upon this Bench knew the same thing.

Mr. BUCHANAN: What is the point of Order? That is an interruption.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We shall get on more rapidly without interruptions.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I was waiting for the point of Order. The hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) will accept any challenge except the challenge in Govan that I have given him already.

Mr. MACLEAN: I say that is a lie.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not charge another hon. Member with lying.

Mr. MACLEAN: I am not charging him. I am actually making a statement. It is not a charge. It is the truth.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must withdraw. That is the same thing. I am sorry, but I must insist on his withdrawing.

Mr. MACLEAN: I will say, then, that what he has stated is untrue.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I fear that that is no apology.

Mr. MACLEAN: I will go out of the House sooner than withdraw. I will not withdraw.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Then I must request the hon. Member to withdraw from the House.

The hon. Member withdrew accordingly.

Mr. BUCHANAN: What I said was that everybody knew to be true what I was saying about the Lord Advocate. On the question of this trial, there is no doubt that the minds of all decent folk in Scotland are very much perturbed. The Under-Secretary is annoyed with me for making statements in the absence of the Lord Advocate, but he knows as well as I do that I raised the question when he was here, though at that time we were limited in our discussion. If he agrees to withdraw this Estimate now, I will repeat what I have to say in front of the Lord Advocate. The Solicitor-General knows quite well that I would have preferred that the Lord Advocate should be present. I do not want to put the Solicitor-General in an awkward position. I know that he is not the responsible person, and that it is rather unfair to put him in his present position, but I have been left no option. It is the Government who have brought forward the Estimate to-day, and not me. If the Estimate is withdrawn I will withdraw anything I have said, and reserve it for the next occasion, but the Government cannot present their Estimates and then blame us for making speeches at the time they have chosen. The last time I raised the question we were told that an appeal was being heard, and now it is this affair which intervenes. I leave the matter where it is now, but I say quite frankly, on behalf of those for whom I speak, that we on this bench, so far as our strength will permit will vote against this Estimate.

8.2 p.m.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: I know nothing of the merits of the case which the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has raised, but I listened to him with interest, and I am sure that every Member, in whatever part of the House he sits, attaches as much importance as he does to the equal administration of justice among all classes of people in Scotland. But I must say that I listened with astonishment to his attacks on the Lord Advocate. He waved his hands in the direction of myself, and I do
not know whether he wanted to include me when he said that everybody in Scotland knew about a certain case, but for my part I had not the faintest glimmering of an idea as to what he was referring. I worked with the Lord Advocate in intimate co-operation for a number of months, and I greatly admired the high sense of justice which he always showed in every matter of which I was cognisant. I am convinced that in these matters he would wish to do justice as between citizens in different circumstances, and I cannot believe for one moment that these allegations which the hon. Member has flung about, without, as far as I can see, bringing any facts to justify them, have the slightest foundation.
He referred in particular to the question of bail. I am not a lawyer, and I cannot speak with any first-hand knowledge of these questions, but I have had to look into similar questions in the past, and I know for a fact that bail is not fixed by the Lord Advocate, but by the court. It is the responsibility of the court that bail is fixed at a sum which is sufficient to guarantee the presence of the defender, and in this particular case, though, as I say, I know nothing of the circumstances of the case, the defender did turn up for trial, so I cannot understand what the complaint of the hon. Member may be. I very much hope that he and his friends will reserve their criticisms of the Lord Advocate until he is able to be present. It is the general view in this House that if there is any matter upon which an hon. Member feels as strongly and as sincerely, I have no doubt, as the hon. Member for Gorbals does, which affects the honour of a Member of this House, that he should give him warning it is to be raised.

Mr. BUCHANAN: We did do that.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: But we know that the Lord Advocate is ill. He has not turned up because he did not choose to appear when the Estimates were to be discussed. We know perfectly well the reason why he is not here, and I very much hope that any further discussion will be adjourned until he is. I would like to say, from my personal knowledge of the Lord Advocate, that I feel convinced that the suspicions of the hon. Member for Gorbals are groundless.

8.6 p.m.

Mr. McKIE: I wish to intervene for a minute only to say something arising out of one or two remarks made by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). I happen to be a very old friend of one of those who were originally arrested in connection with the Silks case. With regard to the charge, if I understood the hon. Member correctly, that the bail fixed, by whoever it was fixed, was in inadequate sums, I venture to say from my own personal knowledge that the bail demanded was in very adequate sums indeed. I am not absolutely certain of the figures, but I fancy the amount of the bail was£1,000 each.

Mr. McGOVERN: £10.

Mr. McKIE: The hon. Member for Gorbals roused himself to a fever-heat of passion about the inequalities in the proceedings in connection with the Silks case. What I am going to say about that case is that those who were interested in the matter in Scotland were naturally very resentful that they had been landed, as many of them were who could ill-afford it, in the position in which they eventually found themselves; but with regard to the administration of justice in that trial, I am going to stand here, and I have behind me the full weight of support of those in my constituency who suffered, and make bold to say that they were perfectly satisfied with the course that justice took, and certainly with the amount of bail that was demanded originally on behalf of the 11 men arrested in connection with the case.

8.8 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: I do not wish to delay a Division on this Supplementary Estimate, but there is an important point which ought to be in the minds of hon. Members when they cast their votes. A certain provision was made for law costs in Scotland. We are living in a period when the most stringent economy has to be observed, yet now the Scottish Law Officers come to ask for 50 per cent, more than was estimated would suffice for law charges in Scotland for a year, and all arising out of one trial, a trial which originally involved 11 men, and, according to the hon. Member who has just-spoken, all honourable men.

Mr. McKIE: The hon. Member must not put words into my mouth. I never
dealt severally with the men originally arrested.

Mr. MAXTON: I do not wish to misrepresent my hon. Friend, but he assured us from his knowledge of the men—

Mr. McKIE: No. I would like to make this point absolutely clear, because we are dealing with a matter which aroused great public attention, and in some quarters indignation, at the time, and we must be absolutely clear. What I said was that one of the men originally arrested was a very old friend of mine. I have known him since I was a child, and he has known me before I could remember anything. I said in connection with him that I knew the details of the case and the sum demanded. I think the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) will agree that that was what I said. My friend was the first to be liberated.

Mr. MAXTON: If I did not misunderstand the hon. Member, that was his first statement; but at the winding-up he took the responsibility, speaking not merely for himself but for his constituents who had lost money, of saying that he believed that everything was fair, square and above-board. I want to point out this aspect of the matter. We as a Committee are considering an expenditure of several tens of thousands of pounds for the bringing to trial of 11 honourable men—honourable at least to this extent, that they could be released on£10 security. They were charged with cheating the public out of several hundreds of thousands of pounds. That was the charge the Law Officers of the Crown brought against them. Now we are told that at a subsequent stage, before their innocence had been proved, they were so honourable and honest that£10 was sufficient.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: So it was.

Mr. McKIE: They all surrendered.

Mr. MAXTON: They turned up, and that is to be the ground for fixing bail—

Mr. McKIE: May I intervene once again? I want this to be made perfectly clear. The point I was going on was the original arrest of the 11 men, and the sum demanded in respect of their bail, and I think it was£1,000.

Mr. MAXTON: So the hon. Member was not defending the£10 bail that was fixed.

Mr. McKIE: I was clearing up the amount of bail fixed originally.

Mr. MAXTON: My hon. Friends were only challenging the administration of the Law Officers in respect of the fact that at a subsequent stage they had allowed two of these men, who had previously been regarded as requiring£1,000, to be liberated on£10 bail.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: I must again point out that the Lord Advocate did not fix the bail. He had nothing whatever to do with fixing the bail. After conviction bail is a question for the court. The court fixed bail. No doubt there are other means, apart from the question of bail, which the Lord Advocate can take to secure the presence of a convicted person at the place of appeal. Whatever means were taken I do not know about them personally; but the bail, or the bail and the other means combined, were effective, and I am at a loss to know whether the hon. Member is going to suggest that a higher bail should have been fixed than was found to be effective.

Mr. MAXTON: No, I am only concerned here to show that in the whole handling of this case from start to finish there was very bad management. They found it was necessary to demand£l,000 bail from men who were innocent, but when the men were guilty£10 was quite sufficient. The Law Officers dragged into the net of the law 11 men, but in the course of the protracted trial which followed one was released about every week, before they came to trial at all. We used to open the newspapers from time to time and find that another of the 11 men had got off. Sometimes it was on account of ill-health; the next time it would be because there was an insufficient case. And so it went on, until at the wind-up the Crown, out of their 11 arrests, secured one and a half convictions. And that has involved us in an expenditure of 50 per cent, more than we had calculated for the total law expenses in Scotland. That is what we are discussing here. I put it that not only were the Law Officers responsible for the prosecution, but they were
responsible for the arrests—for deciding that there was a prima facie case to justify bringing these men to trial and subjecting them to the obloquy of arrest. Then they themselves admitted, as the weeks went on, that there was no case against this one, no case against the next one, no case against the other one; and finally the judges decided that there was only a very trivial case against one and a half, or rather, two. Two in the first court, and one of those got away on appeal.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: Neither of them got away on appeal, and the judge did not consider it a trivial offence. On the contrary, the Lord Justice Clerk, who tried the case spoke of the great gravity of the offence and of the necessity of dealing with it in order to vindicate justice in the commercial life of the country.

Mr. McGOVERN: And reduced the sentence!

Mr. MAXTON: After having delivered that speech, he reduced the sentence.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: He did not reduce the sentence.

Mr. McGOVER: Oh, yes he did!

Mr. MAXTON: The Court of Appeal reduced the sentence, surely.

Mr. McGOVERN: Yes.

Mr. MAXTON: I hope that the Solicitor-General for Scotland is not going to get out of it on a quibble. The Court of Appeal reduced the sentence. The whole thing is quite discreditable. I am not going to allow the Solicitor-General for Scotland to get, away by merely raising righteous indignation because the Lord Advocate is not here. I believe that we observe all the courtesies of the House. The Government knew what they were doing when they brought this Estimate here to-day. The Lord Advocate, on various occasions when we have had to deal with matters arising from his Department, has never taken the trouble to deal with the merits of the case. His parliamentary method has always been to impugn the honour or the honesty of the persons who raise something affecting his Department. He
does not observe the ordinary courtesies of the House, nor has he tried to perform the duties that a responsible Minister ought to perform. He is outside the ordinary rules and regulations. I do not want to carry that aspect of the matter beyond the reasonable scope of a Supplementary Estimate. The Solicitor-General for Scotland may be perfectly certain that the knowledge that he has and that we have will finally percolate through to the people of Scotland, and that steps will be taken to put Scottish law administration on a footing where it can command respect instead of contempt.

8.20 p.m.

Sir PATRICK FORD: I intervene only because I am a little in doubt as to the purpose of the hon. Member for Bridge-ton (Mr. Maxton) in his speech. He seems to take two rather contrary lines. First of all, he objects to the£10 bail on appeal, and then he objects altogether, apparently, to money being spent on the prosecution because the people charged were not convicted. I do not think that there is anything very serious in the charge that he brings against the administration of justice, because it is one thing to say that there is prima facie evidence, and it is another thing to have it proved. According to his theory, if there is prima facie evidence you do not need to go on with the trial. There was quite enough evidence to suggest that there were very grave misdemeanours by the people who were charged, but if on proof it turned out, either because of

legal technicalities or for some other reason, that they were not guilty, that did not absolve the Law Officers from seeing that those people were brought to trial on prima facie evidence sufficient not to condemn them, but to see that the matter was sifted and as a warning to all people engaged in commercial enterprises of that kind that the law has its eye upon them, and that they must be above suspicion on those matters.

When it came to the matter of appeal, the complexion of the case was altered and there was no likelihood of those people "skipping their bail" to use a slang phrase. To waste the time of Parliament time after time, as the hon. Member for Bridgeton and his friends have done, in flogging the dead horse of this case against the Crown Officers, which amounts to nothing at all—

Mr. MAXTON: It amounts to£13,000.

Sir P. FORD: —is not in the interests of Scottish justice or of the Scottish people at large. I incline to think that while it is very wholesome for the Government and for the Law Officers to know that they have intelligent and active critics, the critics are rather undermining their own position when they insist upon frivolous charges like this. I hope that this is the last time we shall hear of those charges.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 178; Noes, 2.

Division No. 49.]
AYES.
[8.22 p.m.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds,W.)
Clarry, Reginald George
Glossop, C. W. H.


Albery, Irving James
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Gluckstein, Louis Halle


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Cook, Thomas A.
Goff, Sir Park


Aske, Sir Robert William
Cooke, Douglas
Goldie, Noel B.


Atholl, Duchess of
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)


Atkinson, Cyril
Craven-Ellis, William
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Crossley, A. C.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Hales, Harold K.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Ztl'nd)


Bernays, Robert
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Hammersley, Samuel S.


Blindell, James
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Boulton, W. W.
Dickie, John P.
Harris, Sir Percy


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Duncan, James A.L.(Kensington, N.)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Edwards, Charles
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Elmley, Viscount
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Burghley, Lord
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Hopkinson, Austin


Burnett, John George
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Hornby, Frank


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Horsbrugh, Florence


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Ganzoni, Sir John
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Castle Stewart, Earl
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Hume, Sir George Hopwood


Clarke, Frank
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)


Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Nunn, William
Smithers, Waldron


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Parkinson, John Allen
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Percy, Lord Eustace
Soper, Richard


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Petherick, M
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Kimball, Lawrence
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Kirkpatrick, William M.
Powell, Lieut-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Knight, Holford
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Tinker, John Joseph


Levy, Thomas
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Remer, John R.
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Mabane, William
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Wallace, John (Dunfermilne)


Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Robinson, John Roland
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


McKie, John Hamilton
Ropner, Colonel L.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Magnay, Thomas
Rosbotham, Sir Samuel
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Maitland, Adam
Ross, Ronald D.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Runge, Norah Cecil
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Wells, Sydney Richard


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Martin, Thomas B.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Selley, Harry R.
Withers, Sir John James


Moreing, Adrian C.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)


Morrison, William Shephard
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John



Muirhead, Major A. J.
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Munro, Patrick
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Mr. Womersley and Dr. Morris-Jones.


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Slater, John



Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine.C.)



NOES.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Maxton, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Buchanan and Mr. McGovern.

CLASS I.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding£1,950, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the House of Lords.

8.26 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: This sum of£1,950 is required for the substitution of civilian custodians for certain police in the Houses of Parliament. The Committee may be aware that prior to 1922 the police guarded the Houses of Parliament by night as well as by day, but in that year the police on night duty were replaced by civilians. As a result of that, savings of between£6,000 and£7,000 per annum have accrued. It appeared to the Government that perhaps some further economy might, be made by extending the system, and accordingly a Committee was appointed, consisting of representatives of the House of Lords, the House of Commons, the Treasury, the Office of Works, and the
Metropolitan Police. That Committee recommended an extension of the system, which has since been adopted. The result is that the number of police on this duty has been reduced by 41, and their place has been taken by 40 men of the Corps of Custodians. The economy achieved by this change should be£8,800 per annum. The need for a Supplementary Estimate arises because the police are paid in arrear, and, consequently, it will not be until the next quarter that we shall make the saving we anticipate; and there was a small duplication of activity both by the Corps of Custodians and by the police while the change was being made.
I do not think that anybody in the House objected to the actual substitution of custodians for the police, but what Members in all quarters did object to was that a monopoly should be given to police pensioners to take the place of the police who were retired. I told the House at Question Time that I had been very much impressed by certain questions that were addressed to me in that regard, and I am now able to assure the Committee that it is not the intention
to confine these appointments to police pensioners. The total number is 40, and, of that number, only 13 are police pensioners. I think that even those who object to the appointment of police pensioners at all would agree that, in order that the new system may be put into operation, an experienced quota of police pensioners must be maintained. It is for that purpose that they have been retained, and the Committee will see in what a distinct minority they are. I hope that what I have said will prove satisfactory to the Committee, particularly as I am able to make this statement because, as I have said, the Government were impressed by the criticisms that were made.

8.34 p.m.

Mr. LUNN: We oppose this Supplementary Estimate. I understand that the£l,950 is being asked for in order to replace the police by civilian custodians under the Department of the Lord Chamberlain. I want, first of all, to say that our objection is not of a personal character. I have not the least doubt that the men who have been appointed are honest men, and men of good character, and I understand that one of them, the superintendent, was one of title best superior officers in the Metropolitan Police Force. So that I want to clear away the idea that we are opposing the personnel on personal grounds. But this is an innovation, and Parliament has never discussed the matter. Ever since the Metropolitan Police were established, one of the main reasons for their remaining under Government control has been their connection with the Palace of Westminster. This is false economy—economy with cheap labour. It is an admission on the part of the Government that there is no necessity for the police in this institution. If you want to go further with economy, and it is safe, why not withdraw the police absolutely from the Palace of Westminster?
Then why are these custodians to be used in the House of Lords? Is it not the House of Lords that is most likely to provoke action involving police protection? After all, this is the House that is elected by the popular vote and, however deluded they may have been at the last election, this is the House that represents the interests of the people, and the other House is the one most likely
to injure the interests of the people and provoke hostile action. We object to the method of recruitment and we object to the rates of pay to be given to these men. Constables in the regular police receive, subject to the 10 per cent, cut imposed by this Government, 70s. to 90s. a week, sergeants 100s. to 120s., inspectors 125s. to 193s., and superintendents£550 to£700 per annum. These custodians are to receive not two-thirds of the pay given to the ordinary police who have always been established in the Houses of Parliament.
This is blackleg labour, and on that ground I, as a trade unionist, would be one of the first to oppose a Vote of this kind. They are to have no additions-similar to what is added to the rates of the ordinary policeman. This adulteration of the force is the sort of thing that causes bitterness and ill-feeling and prevents men giving of their best. A third of the custodians are in receipt of pensions which would enable them to live comfortably. We have over 3,000,000 unemployed and there are hundreds of thousands among them who are ex-service men without any pension whatever. If there had to be this adulteration, I should have said men of that kind might have been considered. The Government have nothing to offer the unemployed in the way of work. Their policy always seems to be to support those who do not need it. Even if some of these men have not pensions, it is a shame that they should be appointed to this position in the place of the police at a lower rate of wages to fill a position which calls for the highest standard of trustworthiness and integrity. We would rather that the police had been retained than that these men with pensions and without the need even of this low wage should have been appointed. But if something different should be done, suitable men with no income and without pensions could have been found among the millions who are out of work. In my lifetime the police have become gradually more respected by the people, and we here are jealous of anything that is going to lower their efficiency. I am convinced that the attitude that the Government has taken in lowering the rate of pay at which policemen are to start, and in not providing a gradual means for recruits to come up to the ordinary pay of those who are in
the force, will create ill-feeling and bitterness. This proposal will not help to make the police force more harmonious and do their work better. I feel very strongly that this ought never to have been done, and we shall oppose it in the Division Lobby.

Mr. TINKER: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us the method of appointment and, if there are any further appointments to be made, who will control them?

8.42 p.m.

Sir REGINALD BANKS: The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken seems to think that, because the House of Lords is a notoriously mediaeval and reactionary institution, the public would be rather disposed to vent its indignation in a disorderly manner against that establishment rather than against our own, if it did so at all. That may appear sound in theory, but in practice I think the hon. Gentleman is wrong. The public, when it is in a mood of indignation, does not bother itself about the House of Lords, because it is of opinion that the House of Lords cannot do very much one way or another, whatever pressure is put upon them. Our experience is that any slight tendencies to trouble that there may have been in the past have always been due to the fact that large numbers of persons have been encouraged to come, to this House and put pressure upon us by presenting petitions, because they realise that it is in this House that the power of the purse resides and it is upon Ministers on the Front Bench that pressure can most effectively be put. Whatever the theory may be, the practice is quite contrary to what the hon. Gentleman says, and any disorderly demonstrations that may ever be made will always be directed against the House of Commons and not the House of Lords.

8.44 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I should like to ask whether, apart from the 13 police pensioners who have been referred to, any of the other 27 recruits are pensioners also and whether the pensions are derived from the Army, Navy or Air Force or from any business or profession? Will the hon. Gentleman explain in more detail where the economy of£8,000 is to
be obtained? That is equivalent to£4 per week per person. Our information is that the ordinary police constable in the Palace of Westminster only receives round about£4 a week in all. If these custodians are to receive£3 or 65s. a week, how does the hon. Gentleman produce his saving of about£8,000 per annum if the number is only 40? It certainly seems to us to be a curious figure, and perhaps is susceptible of more detailed explanation. To the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Swindon (Sir R. Banks), I would say that my hon. Friend the Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) is apparently right. While it may be that in the past revolutionary activities have not manifested themselves so frequently in the other place, the time is not far distant when we anticipate revolutionary activity in the sense that the expressed will of the people will be ignored in the other place, and therefore perhaps will need the ordinary officers who not only know the ropes but are capable of securing order. Perhaps the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will tell us, first, whether any of those 27 non-police pensioners are receiving pensions from other sources, and secondly, how the balance sheet was produced which shows a saving of£6,000 per annum by the transference of the duties of 40 police officers to 40 custodians. If the hon. Gentleman will tell us we shall better be able to decide our action.

8.47 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have no reason to complain of the questions which have been put to me. I will answer first the question addressed to me by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker)—Who is to engage these custodians? The answer is, the Lord Great Chamberlain, whose Department this is. I will pass to the two specific questions put to me by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams)—Do any of these men draw pensions? The answer is, No. I am speaking, of course, of service pensions. Whether any of them happen to be disabled and have a disability pension I am not precisely informed, but they have no pensions of the kind the hon. Member has in mind. He next asked me the details of economies. Reduction in the cost of police borne on the House of Lords Vote,£6,600; the House of Com-
mons Vote,£6,100; reduction in charges falling on the Office of Works Vote for night watchmen,£2,800, making a total of£15,500; less cost of corps of custodians— as I have already shown—£6,700, making a difference of£8,800. That is the balance sheet which I have before me.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Surely the hon. Member is not suggesting that by changing the policemen for custodians you are saving£200 a year on each, because that is what the figures show.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: As I have said, this is the balance sheet which I have before me.

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: It is perfectly plain to the Committee.

8.49 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: It may be plain to the hon. and learned Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Knight), but I should not imagine that there is another Einstein in the House at the moment. How is the appointment of 40 custodians at a salary of£3 to£3 5s. a week, which is a reduction of from 15s. to£l a week compared with the salary received by the ordinary officers, the mere saving of£l per person per week in respect of 40 men, going to save£8,800 per annum? If the legal knowledge of the hon. and learned Gentleman is allied to his expert ability in manipulating figures, perhaps he will be good enough to help the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote to tell us exactly where the saving comes in. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is under no delusions that one or other of the figures given to him must not have been strictly accurate. Either the number of persons appointed must exceed 40, or alternatively the actual saving of£8,800 must be from some other source than the mere transfer of police officers to custodians.

8.51 p.m.

Mr. LOGAN: The hon. Member says that the salary is a matter of£3 5s. per week. Supposing you have 40 officers and the saving is 10s. 'a week in respect of each officer, it will bring in only£l,040 a year. If the saving is£1 a week, it will be£2,080 a year. I cannot follow whence the£8,800 comes.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am sorry that my hon. Friends are in some confusion.

Mr. LOGAN: Excuse me, I am not in any confusion.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I thought that my hon. Friend could not follow it at all.

Mr. LOGAN: I can follow.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It is not so amazing as my hon. Friend seems to suggest. Each policeman costs 23s. 6d. per day.

Mr. LUNN: They do not get it.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I say that the cost to the State, including boots, light, and other allowances—we pay it out—is 23s. 6d. per day. It is not the least amazing, as my hon. Friends will see, that the total which comes under that head, is£15,500, and that the cost of the corps of custodians is£6,700, making a difference of£8,800. I confess that when I was interrupted it seemed to me the interruption was well-founded, but since I have made a calculation, I think that my answer is well-founded. Those were the specific questions asked of me, and if there are any other questions I will reply to them.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I have a question to ask arising out of the financial statement. For the benefit of the outside world we ought to clear up the matter, and it is exclusively for that reason that I pursue the question at the moment. Are we to understand from the hon. Gentleman that the net cost per policeman, not actually received in the form of salary or wage but for clothing, boots and any other commitments, is round about£8 4s. 6d. a week. If so, I ask the hon. Gentleman what additions there will be to the 60s. a week wage of the 34 custodians? There must be uniforms which are accounted for by£120, but what other charges will fall to be divided among the 34 custodians, plus the superintendent, inspectors and assistants 1 If we knew what the Estimate was of the other charges against those 40 custodians, either weekly or daily, if we had a comparable figure given with regard to the police officers, it would be easier arithmetic and would not require any expert of the Nottingham type to clear up the matter so that we on this side of the Committee could understand it.

8.54 p.m.

Dr. O'DONOVAN: As these custodians will be our servants we ought to be as much interested in the care of their health as their pocket. Do I gather that the sole contribution we are suggesting for the care of their health is a mere fraction—the£22 set down on page 4? One can well conceive that in the depth of night there might very well be a ghastly accident, and there is no provision made for their care when they are sick or injured.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. HALES: It would appear at first sight that there would be a saving in the transfer of the duties of the police to custodians. I take it that the police originally employed here will go back to their ordinary duties in the force and, therefore, instead of any real economy being effected you are adding to the cost of the police, whilst finding employment for those who had hitherto had nothing to do. Is not that the case?

8.56 p.m.

Mr. LUNN: The Financial Secretary says that we now pay£l 3s. 6d. per day for a policeman. We know that the policeman does not get£l 3s. 6d. a day. I should like to know to whom this money is paid. Is it paid to the Metropolitan Police Fund? In the case of the custodians, who are to receive 60s. per week, is their pay to be paid directly by the Government to the men, or does it

go to the Metropolitan Police Fund? If the Financial Secretary could give us information on that point it would enable us to understand something of the saving.

8.57 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Details of police administration would be more appropriately discussed on the Police Vote. I am not seized with all the details concerning the police. The point raised by the hon. Member does not actually arise on this Vote, otherwise I should have received information about it. I have, however, obtained some information, and that is that the police, in addition to pay, receive quarters, uniform and certain allowances. The custodians will only receive uniforms. The total saving is£8,700 by the change. The hon. Member for Mile End (Dr. O'Donovan) is naturally, being a medical man, solicitous about the health of the custodians. I am bound to inform him that no arrangements additional to those usually provided for members of a State service will be provided. If my hon. Friend thinks that something additional should be done, perhaps he will communicate with us on the subject. I do not know what his actual suggestion would be. I do not know whether he thinks an ambulance station or something of that kind should be set up. Nothing additional is provided at the present time.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 173: Noes, 25.

Division No. 50.]
AYES.
[9.0 p.m.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Goldie, Noel B.


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Colman, N. C. D.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas


Aske, Sir Robert William
Cook, Thomas A.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Atholl, Duchess of
Cooke, Douglas
Hales, Harold K.


Atkinson, Cyril
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Craven-Ellis, William
Hammersley, Samuel S.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hanley, Dennis A.


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Crossley, A. C.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernaro
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Bernays, Robert
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Blindell, James
Dickie, John P.
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsf'd)


Boulton, W. W.
Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Hopkinson, Austin


Boyce, H. Leslie
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Brass, Captain Sir William
Elmley, Viscount
Hornby, Frank


Broadbent, Colonel John
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Horobin, Ian M.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Horsbrugh, Florence


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood


Burghley, Lord
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)


Burnett, John George
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Ganzoni, Sir John
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Gledhill, Gilbert
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Castle Stewart, Earl
Glossop, C. W. H.
Kimball, Lawrence


Clarke, Frank
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Kirkpatrick, William M.


Clarry, Reginald George
Goff, Sir Park
Knight, Holford


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Nunn, William
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
O' Donovan, Dr. William James
Soper, Richard


Law, Sir Alfred
Percy, Lord Eustace
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Petherick, M.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)
Storey, Samuel


Lennox-Boyd, A. T,
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Levy, Thomas
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Pybus, Percy John
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Sutcliffe, Harold


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


McKie, John Hamilton
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Reed, Arthur c. (Exeter)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Magnay, Thomas
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Maitland, Adam
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Ropner, Colonel L.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Rosbotham, Sir Samuel
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Ross, Ronald D.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Runge, Norah Cecil
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Martin, Thomas B.
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Wells, Sydney Richard


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Mills, Major J. O. (New Forest)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Moreing, Adrian C.
Selley, Harry R.
Withers, Sir John James


Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Womersley, Walter James


Morrison, William Shephard
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Muirhead, Major A. J.
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Munro, Patrick
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Unv., Belfast)



Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Lieut-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward and Dr. Morris-Jones.


Normand, Wilfrid Gull[...]
Somervell, Donald Bradley



NOES.


Attlee. Clement Richard
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
McGovern, John


Banfield, John William
Edwards, Charles
Maxton, James


Batey, Joseph
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Milner, Major James


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Parkinson, John Allen


Buchanan, George
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Price, Gabriel


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hicks, Ernest George
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Daggar, George
Logan, David Gilbert



Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lunn, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES —




Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. Tinker.


Question put, and agreed to.

CLASS II.

FOREIGN OFFICE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding£4,000, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

9.5 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): This Supplementary Estimate for£4,000 deals with a very limited matter. As the Committee is aware the receipts of the Passport Office are brought into the Estimates as Appropriations-in-Aid, and when the Estimate was presented to the House it was calculated, and hoped, that this source would enable the Appropriations-in-Aid to reach the estimated sum of£103,849. In view of the prevailing economic situation, and perhaps more particularly of the appeal which was made to the public to spend their holidays at home rather than abroad, the number of new
passports taken out this year has been smaller than was estimated, with the result that the contribution from passports by way of Appropriations-in-Aid as£4,000 less than the sum expected. I, therefore, ask for the authority of the Committee to provide that additional sum.
May I explain that the matter is limited in this way. The question raised on this Supplementary Estimate is not the passport system, or whether there should be any passports or not. If that was so the additional sum which would have to be provided would be about£100,000. Neither is it a question of visas. They do not come within the scope of this Estimate, for the visas which are levied by our officers abroad on the passports of foreigners do not come under this Vote at all but under the Vote for the Consular Services. The question as I see it is whether the Committee will think fit to authorise the grant of an additional sum of£4,000 in order that the Appropriations-in-Aid may be made up to the figure which was estimated for when the Estimate was presented.

9.9 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I hesitate to criticise the right hon. Gentleman but I must complain against the gentle hint he gave to the Chair that the discussion is somewhat circumscribed on this Vote. I will try and expand the circle. I want to ask one or two questions. The Foreign Secretary has tried to prove that we cannot discuss anything on this Vote but the reduction of the income from passports given to Britishers going abroad. Surely the campaign that has been conducted at the instance of the Government asking the people of this country to remain at borne, and thus curtail their knowledge of international affairs, must have had some repercussions abroad. I should like to know whether the campaign that has been conducted within our own shores to induce our people to spend their money here has actually had any repercussions abroad. Have the French Government issued an edict to their people to holiday on the French Riviera and not in this country? I see that the number of foreigners coming into this country during the three months ending the 31st December, 1932, shows a reduction on the corresponding figure of the previous year: the figures are 376,000 and 337,000.

The CHAIRMAN (Sir Dennis Herbert): Will the hon. Member tell me how he gets into this Supplementary Vote the question of French subjects coming to this country'?

Mr. DAVIES: I am sorry that the Foreign Secretary gave a hint that I should be out of order in whatever I said on this Vote. Those figures were by way of illustration, to show that any action on our part must have its repercussions abroad. I think it is a proper question to ask, whether the stay-at-home campaign is conducted abroad on the same lines as we conduct it here.

The CHAIRMAN: That is not at all in order. That question has not the slightest connection with this Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. DAVIES: There has been a reduction of£4,000 in the Vote and, therefore, there is a reduction in the number of passports issued. That is the reason for the reduction in the income; and as the Foreign Secretary has told us that this stay-at home campaign has reduced
the income I want to know whether the Government have given its sanction to this policy. Has it taken any part in the campaign? Lord Snowden made a speech in favour of it. Its adoption automatically reduces the income to the passport office. Was Lord Snowden definitely instructed by the National Government to conduct this campaign and, if so, is it now the policy of the Government to call upon our people to remain at home and not spend their holidays abroad?

9.14 p.m.

Mr. MANDER: It is rather disappointing that for the second year in succession there is a deficit in fees from the Passport Office. The figure was£l,500 last year, and it seems to be considerably larger this year, and that in spite of the fact that the fees are still double what they were before the crisis. I should like to know whether the amount charged covers the cost of the passport, and whether the right hon. Gentleman does not think that it would be wiser in the interests of the country at the present time to get rid of these charges altogether

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman forgets that this is a Supplementary Estimate. He cannot now discuss the main Estimate or the policy of the Government.

Mr. MANDER: If it is impossible to raise the main question I find it difficult to pursue my argument. It is calculated that there were coming over to Europe some years ago Americans who spent something like 600,000,000 dollars. They are discouraged from coming into this country by the fees that are charged.

The CHAIRMAN: Americans coming here do not require British passports.

Mr. MANDER: They require visas.

The CHAIRMAN: Visas have nothing to do with this Estimate either.

Mr. MANDER: The only further thing I can do is to appeal to my right hon. Friend to take the one little step of removing barriers between nations as far as he can.

Mr. LOGAN: With regard to the revised Estimate, what number of people, how many passports does it represent?

Mr. CHARLES BROWN: Does the Foreign Secretary think that the explanation of the decrease in the number of passports issued by the Foreign Office is the general mess the Foreign Office are making of foreign affairs, and that it creates a disinclination on the part of British subjects to go abroad owing to the general disturbances which exist?

9.18 p.m.

Sir J. SIMON: As regards the last question, I think we must leave it for the future to decide. In reply to another question, the present charge for a passport is 15s. A passport lasts for five years, and if there is an application for a renewal of the passport there is a fee of 2s. a year up to a further total of five years. I cannot tell bow much of the£99,000 is due to new passports and how much to renewals, but one can form a general view as to the number involved. As regards my hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), I sympathise with him exceedingly in his difficulty in getting a passport from the Chair, but the fact is that the additional sum required is only£4,000, because whatever may be said on one side or the other we have a passport system which does produce a revenue.
I leave to the last the important question which was put by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies). The advice which was publicly given, that as far as possible people should spend their holidays at home rather than spend money abroad, was, of course, advice given in connection with the effort to
maintain our own currency and to avoid an increasing strain on the exchanges. I am very glad to think that the advice was very largely followed, and no doubt it has had a material effect in preserving our position in a difficult situation. Thanks to recent events that situation has to some extent been eased. I am informed that whereas in the holiday months the decline in the issue of passports was something more than 60 per cent, from the normal figure in past years, since October last there has been an appreciable increase over the preceding year in the demand for passports. That, I think, goes to show that the hon. Gentleman may be able to spend his customary holiday in the Riviera with assurance.

Mr. R. DAVIES: Are the Government proposing to issue another appeal asking people to stay at home?

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

Committee to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.—[Captain Austin Hudson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-two Minutes after Nine o'Clock.